From their plush apartments, over groaning dinner tables, pseudo-intellectuals have the luxury of depicting squalor and sickness as idyllic, primordially peaceful and harmonious. After all, when the affluent relinquish their earthly possessions to return to the simple life, it is always with aid of sophisticated technology and the option to be air-lifted to a hospital if the need arises. Is there any wonder, then, that “the stereotype of colonial history” has been perpetuated by the relatively well-to-do intellectual elite? Theories of exploitation, Marxism for one, originated with Western intellectuals, not with African peasants. It is this clique alone that could afford to pile myth upon myth about a system that had benefited ordinary people.

What is meant by “benefited”? Naturally, the premise here is that development, so long as it’s not coerced, is desirable and material progress good. British colonists in Africa reduced the state of squalor, disease and death associated with lack of development . To the extent that this is condemned, the Rousseauist myth of the noble, happy savage is condoned. Granted, Africa’s poor did not elect to have these conditions, good and bad, foisted on them. However, once introduced to potable water, sanitation, transportation, and primary healthcare, few Africans wish to do without them. Fewer Africans still would wish to return to Native Customary Law once introduced to the idea that their lives were no longer the property of the Supreme Chief to do with as he pleased.

It “is an absurdity to assert that cannibalism, slavery, magical therapy, and killing the aged should be accorded the same ‘dignity’ or ‘validity’ as old-age security, scientific medicine, and metal artifacts,” noted anthropologist George Peter. While old habits die hard, most “people prefer Western technology and would rather be able to feed their children and elderly than kill them,” he notes in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. And the West largely eliminated “many of the worst endemic and epidemic diseases in West Africa.” Ask Moeletsi Mbeki, the brother of South Africa’s former president Thabo Mbeki. He has admitted that “the average African is poorer [today] than during the age of colonialism.”

Even so—and whether they stay or go—the blame for all the ills of this backward and benighted region falls on Westerners. One dreadfully off-course notion has it that the colonial powers plundered Africa and failed to plow back profits into the place. This manifest absurdity is belied by the major agricultural, mineral, commercial and industrial installations throughout the continent. The infrastructure in Africa was built by the colonial powers. Far from draining wealth from less developed countries,” as P. T. Bauer richly documented, in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion, “British industry helped to create it there.”

ORDER IT NOW

Another widely canvassed, equally implausible, accusation is that the West, which was streaks ahead of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia well before colonization, got rich on the backs of poor nations. How then do we explain the fact that the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Australia, have achieved some of the world’s highest living standards? After all, none of these nations had any colonies (except Australia, which after World War I acquired sovereignty over the former German territory consisting of what is now Papua New Guinea). They were rich without any meaningful ties to the undeveloped world. The wealthiest and most advanced countries were themselves colonies once: North America and Australia. As Bauer conclusively proved, the West’s human resources, and not any exploitation of the backward world, account for its innovation and achievements.

Much less is it legitimate to claim that contact with entrepreneurial Europeans and Asians has enervated Africa. Regions that have had the greatest commercial contact with the West are far and away more developed than regions that had little such contact. Compare the people of West Africa, parts of East and Southern Africa, and the inhabitants of Africa’s ports, with desert and rainforest dwellers like the Bushmen and pigmies. Or, with never-colonized Liberia, Afghanistan, Tibet and Nepal.

We can’t lay the blame for Africa’s tragedy on the much-deplored exploitation of natural resources either. Most natural resources are useless lumps of nothing. Without the ingenuity of men—iron, aluminum, coal and oil would lie purposeless and pristine in the wildernesses, and the matter and energy abundant on earth would come to naught. Such a state of affairs describes pre-colonial Africa, to which the colonial powers introduced the wheel and wheeled transport.

“Much of British colonial Africa was transformed during the colonial period,” writes Bauer, also in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion:

“In the Gold coast there were about 3000 children at school in the early 1900s, whereas in the mid-1950s there were over half a million. In the early 1890s there were in the Gold Coast no railways or roads, but only a few jungle paths. Transport of goods was by human porterage or canoe.”

Before colonialism, sub-Saharan Africa was a subsistence economy; because of colonialism it became a monetized economy. Before colonialism, there were only bush back roads through which men trekked with goods on their backs. During colonialism roads were built. In pre-colonial times the absence of public security made investment in Africa too risky. Post-colonialism, investment flowed. With the colonial administrations came scientific agriculture, introduced by the colonists and by “foreign private organizations and persons under the comparative security of colonial rule, and usually in the face of formidable obstacles.”

“‘In British West Africa public security and health improved out of all recognition … peaceful travel became possible; slavery and slave trading and famine were practically eliminated, and the incidence of the worst diseases reduced.’ Mortality fell, population increased, communications and ‘peaceful contact within Africa and with the outside world’ increased in British colonies.”

As uneven and problematic as progress often was, “everywhere in Black Africa modern economic life began with the colonial period.” “Economic modernity could not have been effected without a mediated imperial structure,” maintains economist Niall Ferguson. In Africa, colonial governments encountered “conditions unfavorable to material progress,” to wit, civil and tribal war and slavery. By establishing the rule of law, protecting private property and enforcing contractual relations, building infrastructure, and organizing “basic health services,” and introducing modern financial and legal institutions—the colonial powers enhanced, rather than hindered, progress. Although—or perhaps because—all these advancements interfered with traditional customs, they also advanced the continent materially.

ORDER IT NOW

Clearly, political independence doesn’t go hand-in-glove with material progress. But grievance-based explanations have a way of evolving. Before independence, Africa’s backwardness was attributed to colonialism. After independence, neocolonialism replaced colonialism as the excuse du jour for the failure of African leaders to ameliorate their people’s plight. Neocolonialism encompasses any unhappy condition that can no longer be attributed to colonialism. Pizza Hut opening an outlet in Lima can easily be framed as the modern equivalent of Pizarro descending on the Incas, to paraphrase journalist Henri Astier.

On rare occasions the interests of an African politician and his people will converge. On one such occasion, and in desperation, the former president of Sierra Leone, the late Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, where life expectancy is just forty-nine years, “asked a visiting British politician, in the presence of journalists, if it might be possible for his country to become part of the British Empire again.”

When all is said and done, the West is what it is due to human capital—people of superior ideas and abilities, capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy. Human action is the ultimate adjudicator of a human being’s worth; the aggregate action of many human beings acting in concert makes or breaks a society. Overall, American society is superior to assorted African and Arab societies because America is still inhabited by the kind of individuals who make possible a thriving civil society.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Impossible question to answer, because an answer denies the very nature of the question. Let me explain it as shortly, and as concisely as I can:

It's ALL a lie. Everything you have learned in grade 1-12 history, is a lie, what you see with your own eyes is a lie, your news broadcasters are not giving you news, but propaganda. Your 'advanced" science is a hundred years old, and you live in the matrix. When I say everything, once again I mean everything!

The next time you go to the lake, ask yourself "if the planet is moving 70,000 an hour and rotating at 1100, why isn't this lake splashing around..."

And then, as I've tried to explain multiple times here, there is this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m2fCYrBGJQ

The Lucefarians have taken over your mind, Old Sport, and it's up to you to humble yourself and take it back...

see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:http://codoh.comNo name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

Don’t forget Libya, and how the people of this entire country have suffered irreversible damage under a self-serving Zionist plan to implement social apartheid justice throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Don't forget Libya, and how the people of this entire country have suffered irreversible damage under a self-serving Zionist plan to implement social apartheid justice throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You to Knowhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-want-you-to-know/5414289

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle Easthttp://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

North Africahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa

Yes, Libya destroyed ironically by the coward mass murderer Obama of African descent, where the word descent is the operative reality of the decadent perpetrator.

The negro is a scourge upon the earth. They must be removed from the West and brought back to their ancestral lands in Africa. From that point the whole of Sub Saharan Africa needs to be quarantined; all entry points and exit points need to be secured. Naval vessels from Europe and the US would need to patrol the shores of Africa and immediately shoot down vessels attempting to leave.

After a period of 100 years Africa will have under gone a massive transformation and its population would once again be under the control of Mother Nature, and not do gooders from western nations playing God. At which point the blacks in Africa would be indistinguishable from the local animal wildlife. Recolonization would then take place and the Africans would be given a small corner of undesirable land somewhere on the continent. That area would also be completely sealed off from the world. If the population gets out of hand, firearms and ammunition would be air dropped in and the blacks would do what blacks do best – slaughter each other.

Mistakes of the past should never be revisited. Allowing the negro to occupy our inner cities has been a disaster with disastrous results. Intermingling with negro is simply not an option any longer. They must be kept separate from humankind.

This is a bit simplistic (understatement!). Whether one buys into HBD or not (I partly do) the effects of western colonialism on Sub Saharan Africa were pretty anti-developmental overall. In order of importance (in my view) 1. Colonialism prevented ‘strong’ tribes/ethnic groups, like the Tutsi, from building larger, more ‘modern’ states organically – something which the UN system and aid system has continued to prevent (see Congo and imagine how much better off it would be if the Tutsis had been allowed to conquer it). 2. Colonialism mostly interrupted and stopped nascent capitalism in Africa rather than supporting it (contra liberal globalist charlatan Ferguson), by redirecting resources to mines and export crops and away from organically developing trade and agriculture. 3. Contra Mercer’s un-historical comment about all powerful ‘chiefs, colonialism actually reinforced traditional power structures and ‘traditionalized’ societies and in its absence African societies may have (through war) been forced to develop in ‘modern’ directions such as private property and taxation systems, etc.

The medicine and ‘clean water’ stuff seems entirely marginal to me – compared to the damage colonialism did in preventing the kind of Darwinian struggles in Africa that might have built some viable modern states (albeit with the qualifications that Jared Diamond, HBD, etc have about the ceiling on African development).

Of course much of this applies to other parts of the world too – esp. South Asia, and I suppose from a meta Darwinian point of view you could argue that ‘the strong make the weak weaker’ as a matter of course – but there is an element of ‘unfairness’ in this – and to recognize it doesn’t make you an SJW.

While I largely agree, the fact is that the Tutsi were constrained by their own behaviour. They were a feudal aristocracy, yet they constituted 15% of the population. The next worst feudal society was Poland (10%). Also, with US free reign, Kagame, helping him to power both with legal and diplomatic cover, materiel and overt intervention), he was able to occupy about half of DRC for a while, and that simply led Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola to join together to drive him out.

In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.[...]Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ. [...] Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.

I recommend reading Stanley or Livingstone’s accounts of their explorations of East and central Africa if you want a good idea of the African idyll. Their books are freely available on Project Gutenberg. Both Livingstone (as a missionary) and later Stanley (as an administrator) saw Christianity and open trade as the solution to the devastation caused by Arab slavery, warfare and cannibalism. They weren’t wrong.

People who crap on about the evils of colonialism clearly don’t read history books. It would be an interesting exercise to take the precolonial population and extrapolate forward to see what Africa would look like today if it had not been colonized.

The Arab (and Ethopian) slave trade (including to India, where there remain east African slave descendant populations) was harmful, but these individuals were hardly disinterested. Moreover, many of the slave traders had quite comfortable relations for a long time with the European colonial regimes. Case in point, Emin Pasha and King Leopold.

Without a corresponding effort to increase the genetic capital and aggregate IQ of the average African population, the development caused by colonialism and Western investment in sub-Saharan Africa created the conditions for a massive dysgenic population explosion that will soon threaten to engulf Europe (if not the world). From this perspective, colonialism has had terrible long-term consequences.

I also think it’s possible to make the argument that, in a psychological and cultural sense at least, blacks were better off prior to the existence of AIDS and modern weaponry in Africa. Yes, many African customs are utterly barbaric by Western standards. However, keep in mind that Africans evolved such customs over tens of thousands of years. They were not necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied under them. Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve for it is often not beneficial for the population impacted, even if material improvements occur.

"Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve" modernity is the exception for all human populations.
the neolithic revolution and even more so the industrial revolution are very recent by the standards of human history.

Africans threaten to engulf Europe because of the weakness and cowardice of white Europeans, not because of any African population explosion.

So Nigeria, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Congo, Kenya, etc. can ramp up their population all they want. If Europe guards its borders and repels would-be invaders, who cares what other people do in their own countries?

But that is the last thing Merkel, Hollande, and May want to do. Death is preferable.

It is also reasonable to note that modern wonderful white people had "utterly barbaric" customs not all that long ago. Slavery less than 150 years. The last person killed by the Inquisition 1826. Drawing and quartering 1782. Last witch burned 1727.

These are (mostly) British dates. Remoter parts of Europe were a good deal worse.

I sometimes wonder whether the Africans have a point, albeit not one that they would care to acknowledge. The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave. The most humane thing Europeans could have done before leaving is to have guided Africans back to sustainable subsistence farming. A reversion to subsistence agriculture, after the coming population collapse, will likely be the best outcome that Africans can ever hope for. The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America.

"The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave."

First, it's not European, it's human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills--the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

"The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America."

Nope. European invaded and invited Africa and Asia. Moreover, Africans and Asians aren't imported to Europe and North America, they are given opportunities to come over.

It was a great evil what the “civilized” white men did to the Africans. Both slavery and colonization were wrong, wrong, wrong. Africans should have been left by themselves living in their primitive tribes. Instead they were given advanced guns to kill themselves in civil war and white medicine created a population much higher than what they can afford. And the white man also brought them to their own white countries so they can mix with their white females, because whitey (and jewy) could not farm the land by himself.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
a good laugh before my morning shit. my favorite: the english STOPPED slavery once they had colonized africa. a true gem. the wonders of wordsmithery will never cease. i’m going to send that one to the ministry of love, er, shard, in london.
understood: you hate blacks. fair enough. they’re often (at least the scary, visible ones in the cities) an abomination. but stop singing the praises of the conqueror.
we now have an automatized population of slaves, run (probably) by england. so naff off.

The simple truth is that most ordinary Africans were perfectly content to allow the European colonial powers to run their countries, as long as they were generally left alone to live their lives. When the shoe pinched – as it sometimes did – they pushed back but in most cases they were unconcerned with who was in the capital city and they had little day-to-day contact with whites. Life was slowly getting better for most people and that was enough. Almost without exception the trouble in African countries was caused by a tiny class of local malcontents who had been educated in Europe and figured out that by spouting slogans and collaborating with European liberal fools they could seize political power and enjoy the fruits of looting and plunder. A goodly number of these people were latent psychopaths, as they proved once they were in the presidential palace. That, in a nutshell, is the post-colonial history of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The simple truth is that most ordinary Africans were genuinely bitter when European colonial powers sought to run their countries, for they preferred to be generally left alone to live their lives. When the shoe pinched – as it sometimes did – they pushed back since they had daily contact with whites. While Africans did benefit from European "generosity", it was at the expense of their culture. The trouble in African countries began when tribal groups set aside their differences and united to remove European rule. Once expunged from their land, these tribes resumed their wars that had been kept under wraps by the iron fist of their colonial masters, suffering from crumbling infrastructure and institutions designed primarily for European elites. That is the post-colonial history of Sub-Saharan Africa.

1. So Rwandan/Ugandan/British/US theft (often via slave labour mining; I refer to the Coltan mining) and genocide (5-10 million) does not harm DRC? Pray tell. Word on the street is that the Rwandan economy was doing well enough.

2. British colonialism initially may have medically improved the lives of Kenyans, including Gikuyu, but the policy had become decidedly starvationist (via taxation, no less! despite resource extraction; such consistent Friedmanite/etc libertarianism) by the time of the Mau Mau. By the way, despite the relevant agreement with regards to the (Maa) White Highlands being decidedly a temporary one, Kenya had to pay reparations (!!) for their return—I take it that your firm commitment to property rights doesn’t extend to the Maa.

Then again, such ‘libertarian’ silence about the mechanics of colonialism, in favour of broadsides regarding alleged cumulative effect (40% of Angolans were de facto slaves until independence in 1975, and the country had a single black university educated citizen) is always telling. When such matters are brought up, the fallback position is to point to south-western Nigeria, as university education had extended to substantial portions of the population. But here we face a crunch—south western Nigeria had been colonized for much longer than the rest of black colonial Africa, and despite substantial taxation, other colonies were required to keep it up. In this regard, it is bemusing in light of Britain’s deindustrialization, that it is following the Swiss Banking scam model, though even then, it cannot fund the needs of its ethnic native population, and must bring in foreigners in order to entice their funds.

3. Sweden did have several colonies at various times, and it also had a large resource base (minerals and surface area per unit population). Moreover, it had decidedly favourable trade relations with the Soviet Union, as did Finland, post war, although Sweden avoided the destruction of the war itself, having been neutral.

There is another issue here. National wealth accumulation is after all related to profitability, which in plain accounting terms, is the difference between moneys paid to obtain material and labour, and moneys obtained for product sold. Which is why third world refinement of ores (except for the dirtiest stages of said refinement) is usually discouraged. Case in point, Jamaican Bauxite, with again a “firm commitment” (yes, sarcasm is warranted) to the ‘free market,’ much as during the colonial period.

For shear gallows humor, one may consider the case of the biggest mining operator country in Africa, namely Canada. Despite its immense territory and low population, it still finds its foreign exchange position sufficiently uncomfortable to run a litany of mining-related policy scams (Canada in Africa, Yves Engler). But what makes it even richer is, despite its opposition to producer cartels abroad, Canada runs its own producer cartel, CANPOTEX. Funny what high standards of living may be obtained.

4. I take it that Britain’s intervention in Egypt, to stop industrialization, around the same time as Sweden’s industrialization, doesn’t count. Nor does British policy.

5. I take it that the dollar wall street regime doesn’t count either. The fact that your foreign aid racket (federal government pays US company money to do work in poor country, with subsequent US dollar denominated debt for poor country; books like Michael Hudson’s Superimperialism and Graham Hancock’s Lords of Poverty come to mind—the problem is hardly limited to the US) is designed to force privatization should, by your beliefs, improve the poor country’s economy, notwithstanding that most of the US technological sector’s foundational research is state funded. Then again, there is that unpleasant little matter of a certain economic study…

In a sense, post-colonial is like post-slavery. Many of the nasty institutions remain, including the post-colonial leadership, which was, despite colonial marketing efforts (especially in Kenya) largely colonial native leadership. The main difference is that the extractive powers have lost their legal responsibilities, and have found that they can be even more extractive under ‘independence’.

Excellent points to think about, thanks! Couple of questions:
1) I thought Sweden's colonies were like dipping a toe into the water - not very vast or extensive, no?
2) The 5-10 million you mentioned, that's Belgium in the Congo right (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20hardint.html) - or is that something else?

I recommend reading Stanley or Livingstone's accounts of their explorations of East and central Africa if you want a good idea of the African idyll. Their books are freely available on Project Gutenberg. Both Livingstone (as a missionary) and later Stanley (as an administrator) saw Christianity and open trade as the solution to the devastation caused by Arab slavery, warfare and cannibalism. They weren't wrong.

People who crap on about the evils of colonialism clearly don't read history books. It would be an interesting exercise to take the precolonial population and extrapolate forward to see what Africa would look like today if it had not been colonized.

The Arab (and Ethopian) slave trade (including to India, where there remain east African slave descendant populations) was harmful, but these individuals were hardly disinterested. Moreover, many of the slave traders had quite comfortable relations for a long time with the European colonial regimes. Case in point, Emin Pasha and King Leopold.

This is a bit simplistic (understatement!). Whether one buys into HBD or not (I partly do) the effects of western colonialism on Sub Saharan Africa were pretty anti-developmental overall. In order of importance (in my view) 1. Colonialism prevented 'strong' tribes/ethnic groups, like the Tutsi, from building larger, more 'modern' states organically - something which the UN system and aid system has continued to prevent (see Congo and imagine how much better off it would be if the Tutsis had been allowed to conquer it). 2. Colonialism mostly interrupted and stopped nascent capitalism in Africa rather than supporting it (contra liberal globalist charlatan Ferguson), by redirecting resources to mines and export crops and away from organically developing trade and agriculture. 3. Contra Mercer's un-historical comment about all powerful 'chiefs, colonialism actually reinforced traditional power structures and 'traditionalized' societies and in its absence African societies may have (through war) been forced to develop in 'modern' directions such as private property and taxation systems, etc.

The medicine and 'clean water' stuff seems entirely marginal to me - compared to the damage colonialism did in preventing the kind of Darwinian struggles in Africa that might have built some viable modern states (albeit with the qualifications that Jared Diamond, HBD, etc have about the ceiling on African development).

Of course much of this applies to other parts of the world too - esp. South Asia, and I suppose from a meta Darwinian point of view you could argue that 'the strong make the weak weaker' as a matter of course - but there is an element of 'unfairness' in this - and to recognize it doesn't make you an SJW.

While I largely agree, the fact is that the Tutsi were constrained by their own behaviour. They were a feudal aristocracy, yet they constituted 15% of the population. The next worst feudal society was Poland (10%). Also, with US free reign, Kagame, helping him to power both with legal and diplomatic cover, materiel and overt intervention), he was able to occupy about half of DRC for a while, and that simply led Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola to join together to drive him out.

So please give us:
3 historical lies that you disagree with
and:
3 historical lies that you do agree with

The floor is your's sir.

Impossible question to answer, because an answer denies the very nature of the question. Let me explain it as shortly, and as concisely as I can:

It’s ALL a lie. Everything you have learned in grade 1-12 history, is a lie, what you see with your own eyes is a lie, your news broadcasters are not giving you news, but propaganda. Your ‘advanced” science is a hundred years old, and you live in the matrix. When I say everything, once again I mean everything!

The next time you go to the lake, ask yourself “if the planet is moving 70,000 an hour and rotating at 1100, why isn’t this lake splashing around…”

And then, as I’ve tried to explain multiple times here, there is this…

The Lucefarians have taken over your mind, Old Sport, and it’s up to you to humble yourself and take it back…

Hey, Ilana, why don’t you write about the massive harm that Israel-supportin’ and progressive traitor Jews have done to America? There’s quite a bit to write about there! “Western intellectuals,” my ass! Get at it, sweetheart!

I wouldn’t want to live by African standards in Africa, America, or anywhere else on the planet. It would be much easier to shut down immigration and shoulder black/minority dysfunction to the side without Ilana’s cousins funding and supporting the opposition, and calling everyone who wants Western cultural norms a Nazi.

FWIW, I don’t want to live by Jewish norms either, whether it is Ilana or her Bolshevik cousin who is calling the shots.

We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

Remember the Nazis had super duper magic crematoriums so efficient they could burn hundreds of bodies at a time. And unlike modern crematoriums theyleft nothing at all, not even the bits of bones and coarse ashes left by modern crematoriums

Hey, Ilana, why don't you write about the massive harm that Israel-supportin' and progressive traitor Jews have done to America? There's quite a bit to write about there! "Western intellectuals," my ass! Get at it, sweetheart!

I wouldn't want to live by African standards in Africa, America, or anywhere else on the planet. It would be much easier to shut down immigration and shoulder black/minority dysfunction to the side without Ilana's cousins funding and supporting the opposition, and calling everyone who wants Western cultural norms a Nazi.

FWIW, I don't want to live by Jewish norms either, whether it is Ilana or her Bolshevik cousin who is calling the shots.

I will wager that the commenters who decry the evils of colonialism praise neo-colonialism, the colonization of Western Civilization by mass third world immigration.

It is absurdly ironic that white taxpayers who funded the colonial armies, are now paying for the food, clothing, housing and healthcare of hostile invaders. This supports Mercer’s argument that non-whites benefit from both colonialism and neo-colonialism.

It must all be undone. We must all live with our own people in our own cultures.

Blacks are dangerous, the biggest enemy of the white race and civilization.

Why? Blacks are both destructive and seductive. They are both pitiable and pitiless.

Because blacks are such dunderheads when it comes to creating and maintaining civilization, white folks look upon them with pity. “Oh, look at those pitiful Negroes.” They seem so helpless, childlike, weak, and pitiable. They play on your heartstrings. They seem like po’ desperate folks yelling, ‘Hep me, hep me, pleeeze’. White folks look at the poverty in Africa and see helpless Negroes. White folks once watched movies like SOUNDER and saw helpless and hapless Negroes. And Negroes know this altruistic side of white folks. They know it exists even among white bigots who suddenly swell with compassion when they sees a Negro in need of HEP. Some Negroes exploit this side of whitey:

White folks may be smarter than Negroes but they are more earnest than the slickity-slack Negroes, and that can make whites emotionally pretty dim and fall for all sorts of mental Negrobatics. This is why Northern European and East Asian types are the biggest suckers for PC in the West. They have decent IQ’s but earnest emotions. This is why Italian-Americans are generally savvier. Smart or not, they don’t trust nobody and don’t believe in all the ‘pledge of allegiance’ crap.

Anyway, because blacks are collectively useless at maintaining civilization, they live in squalor and poverty. And whites see them as a Weak and Powerless people.
As a collective, blacks are among the weakest people on Earth. Put some blacks in some part of the world, and it will be stinkpot-ville and people will live in dire poverty, like in Haiti. It will be a pitiful nation in terms of economics and political power.

But just because blacks are collectively helpless, whites tend to think blacks are also individually helpless. So, a European nation takes in all these HEPLESS and pitiable Negroes from weak poor nations. It figures blacks will be pitiable in Europe too and be grateful for the guidance of White Folks who show them good will.
But on the individual level, the black man has immense power over the white man. He is more muscular, more aggressive, tougher, meaner, nastier, and thuggish.

So, what looks like a collective bunch of weak Negroes from afar suddenly turns into powerful Negro thugs close up. But because whites have this frozen image of the Weak Helpless Negro(sanctified further by ‘white guilt’ that says blacks suffer cuz of white imperialism), they have difficulty processing the Negro close-up. If the Negro is a weak, pitiable, noble, and suffering creature in need of compassion and mercy, why would he be such a nasty gross thug up close?

WHY?

Because he be crazy and nasty, that’s why. Indeed, the Negro Paradox is he seems so helpless and pitiable because he is so wild, savage, and pitiless. Negroes rob, rape, pillage, loot, and holler in Africa and destroy their communities without pity. They act like baboons and chimps. That is why their nations are such hellholes. So, the Negro only seems helpless because he done help himself to whatever he can rob, rape, loot, and pillage.
But the Narrative is fixated on Negro as poor victim. In the US, after Negroes loot and burn down entire cities, there is the save-the-negro outcry to help them Negroes whose city has burned down…. by Negroes!!
When Negroes made a mess of New Orleans after the flood, they were seen as the victims even though their behavior made the natural disaster 10x worse.
Because of this Narrative Fixation, we are not supposed to discuss why Negroes mess up their own nations or communities.
Of course, when Negroes come to the West, they act the same way. In some ways, they act even worse since (1) they notice whites are weaker and can easily be beaten up (2) the PC narrative blames everything on whitey even when Negroes are the culprit. At least in Africa, if Negroes mess around, other Negroes get angry and whup their ass! Negroes don’t make no excuse for Negroes among theyselves. If Negroes act out of order, other Negroes whup them and lynch their black ass.

So, at the very least, even though the Law of the Jungle in Africa makes Negroes act wild, they are met with swift Jungle Justice if they are caught by other Negroes.

But in the West, whites like to think themselves so ‘progressive’ and ‘civilized’. So, they have all these conceited ‘scientific’, ‘rational’, and ‘enlightened’ notions of dealing with ‘misguided’ behavior. Little do they know that what works for white bonobos don’t work for black chimpanzees. (That is why bonobos live in isolation from chimps. Nicer bonobos fear chimps as the Negroes among apes.) Blacks just see white social methodology as ‘puss-ass’ and ‘fa**oty-ass’ bullshi*. If anything, they feel more emboldened to act out since whitey seems so weak and wussy. Blacks see everything in binaries of ‘badass’ and ‘punkass’. Tough mofos be ‘badass’ and are to be feared or admired. Nice white folks are ‘punkass’. Also, Negroes feel insulted that these nice goo-goo ‘punkass’ weakling whites are giving them advice. They feel like chimps being advised by gibbons or some weak-ass monkey. According to the Law-of-Jungle mindset of the Negro, the only hierarchy that matters if ‘badass’ and ‘punkass’. This is why Africans and Muslims don’t take well to nice white ladies in the West who help them. They feel insulted that some weak-ass white bitch be telling them what is right and wrong. Ho!

Anyway, because African Negroes seem so poor and helpless, because of the MLK and Mandela cults of Negro saint-prophets, and because of Hollywood’s depiction of Magic Negro(like in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and GREEN MILE), the world has this overly positive image of the Negro as creature eternally deserving of love, compassion, and sympathy. (Also, the Narrative of ‘white guilt’ would have us believe that all of Negro poverty & suffering is due to white evil or Chinese exploitation. There is even a strain of thought that suggests that Negroes are poor because they are so pure of heart and incapable of exploitative practices like capitalism. But anyone who knows anything about Negroes know that is so much ROTFL.) But up close, there is nothing more frightening and monstrous than the Negro. Indeed, while Negro is the most powerless people collectively, they are the most powerful people individually.
So, collectively, Negroes will turn Detroit into some run-down rust town where nothing works.
In contrast, Japanese will rebuild Hiroshima and Nagasaki into first-rate cities. So, collectively, Japanese are much more powerful than Negroes. But if you were to match Negroes and Japanese one-on-one, the Negroes will have Japanese for breakfast, esp as Japanese are even small by Asian standards. Negroes will break Japanese like toothpicks.
Among Europeans, French are not very big, and Negroes love to kick French butt. Frenchmen now pee in their pants when confronted by big muscular Negroes who dominate all of French sports. It’s like in the movie CACHE where a French man back down to a threatening black African. (Importing masses of people who are stronger than your people is so dumb. But then, the race is under the delusion that race is just a social construct and all races are the same. But then, there is also the schizo-argument that the West should import more blacks precisely because they are better at sports and funky music. So, it’s wrong to say EU should’t bring in blacks because they can whup whitey, but it’s okay to say EU should bring in more blacks because they are better at sports. It’s as if these EU cucks believe black physical power will be limited ONLY to the sports field.)

But there is worse.
Now, with so many blacks committing crime and destroying property in the West, surely many white people in US and EU have been red-pilled into seeing the darker side of Negro. The destructive side. And they are having second thoughts about PC’s lies about Negroes.
But then, this destructive side has a seductive side since humans are hairless apes attracted to the Power. Just like weaker dogs admire and cower before the stronger dogs, the whitey(even though or precisely because he/she is intimidated by the Negro) is slavishly addicted to the Negro as the icon of power and musicality and athleticism and virility and sexuality. (They went so far as to turn the Founding Fathers into Founding Brothas in HAMILTON.) So, it doesn’t matter if Negroes torch the town, rape your mother, rob your house, loot the mall, and kill cops. Hey, it’s football season again, and we gotta cheer for those mighty Negroes who be catching the ball and balling white cheerleaders and groupies. Hey, it’s NCAA season, and we have to cheer for Negro ballers who be dunking the ball and humping the white ho. Hey, it’s some badass rapper with a new song about how he be a badass or she be a hot ho. Gotta wiggle white butt in imitation of black cool. So, the most destructive part of Negro becomes the seductive siren call that leads whitey to his ruin. This is the way to Negrocalypse.

If blacks were ONLY destructive in the most ugly and unpleasant way, whites might sober up and fight back and send them back to Africa to swing from trees along with chimps and gibbons. But because Negro have powerful booming voice(that secularized whites hear as the voice of god), rhythm and beat(that whites love to dance too), mastery on sports field(that makes whites pee in their pants), big bouncy booties(that white girls want on their backsides as they ‘twerk’ to rap), and big dongs(that the white race now worships as totem), whites have become addicted to the very thing that will totally destroy them.

This is why Derbyshire is right. Mexicans in America are NOTHING compared to blacks who threaten Europe.

Now, some will say there are smart Negroes, especially among black African immigrants.
But this makes things even worse. At least with lower IQ Negroes, whites have some advantage. But if Negroes gain in both brawn and brain, he will totally whup whitey. Also, smart successful Negroes will colonize more white wombs to create disgusting vile creatures like Obama and that punk who made GET OUT and Colin Kaepernick. Imagine that: white wombs creating enemies of the white race who spit on whiteness.

Also, intelligence isn’t everything. Even if smart, black personality and character generally lack conscience, balance, sobriety, sincerity, empathy, and mutuality. Black personality, smart or dumb, feels mainly in terms of (gots to)’have me’ and ‘gibs me’. Negroes are Negrocentric.
This is why black men and black women fight so often. They think they be right and everyone be wrong.

In the end, the Orangutan was right about Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES.
In the end, Bill Buckley was right about ape threat in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES.
Negroes are even worse and will be the undoing of civilization. But because what is destructive is also seductive in the Negro, white folks will go the way of the Eternals at the end of ZARDOZ.

Hillarious and enlightening, however some of your points need adjustment starting with : "dongs" = A recent study revealed that french men , on average, are endowed with the largest "dongs" wordwide, and I can recall my ( white) cousin, as a thirteen year old with his eleven inches, he retired as a high ranking naval officer, although I doubt that his anatomical attributes had any impact upon his military career.
Secondly : Black "badness" : This is all a front, having nothing to do with reality, rather an a method with which fear can be instilled within an otherwise worthy opponent.
I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : "Er hat mich geschlagen".
Black "Badness" can be related to the "Glaring" pre-fight episode at the beginning of boxing match. Rocky Marciano did not engage in this phony cockyness, and he still kicked everyone's butt but who challenged him.
"Seductiveness" : I was in a band decades ago with a black american tenor sax player ( he retired as an MD east coast US ). He told me that all of the white women who made a cult out of black guys were crazy and you could dick them but you couldn't talk to them.
So it might be helpful to revise some of your otherwise valid viewpoints.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US army vet and pro jazz artist.

Without a corresponding effort to increase the genetic capital and aggregate IQ of the average African population, the development caused by colonialism and Western investment in sub-Saharan Africa created the conditions for a massive dysgenic population explosion that will soon threaten to engulf Europe (if not the world). From this perspective, colonialism has had terrible long-term consequences.

I also think it's possible to make the argument that, in a psychological and cultural sense at least, blacks were better off prior to the existence of AIDS and modern weaponry in Africa. Yes, many African customs are utterly barbaric by Western standards. However, keep in mind that Africans evolved such customs over tens of thousands of years. They were not necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied under them. Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve for it is often not beneficial for the population impacted, even if material improvements occur.

“Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve” modernity is the exception for all human populations.
the neolithic revolution and even more so the industrial revolution are very recent by the standards of human history.

Blacks are dangerous, the biggest enemy of the white race and civilization.

Why? Blacks are both destructive and seductive. They are both pitiable and pitiless.

Because blacks are such dunderheads when it comes to creating and maintaining civilization, white folks look upon them with pity. "Oh, look at those pitiful Negroes." They seem so helpless, childlike, weak, and pitiable. They play on your heartstrings. They seem like po' desperate folks yelling, 'Hep me, hep me, pleeeze'. White folks look at the poverty in Africa and see helpless Negroes. White folks once watched movies like SOUNDER and saw helpless and hapless Negroes. And Negroes know this altruistic side of white folks. They know it exists even among white bigots who suddenly swell with compassion when they sees a Negro in need of HEP. Some Negroes exploit this side of whitey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

White folks may be smarter than Negroes but they are more earnest than the slickity-slack Negroes, and that can make whites emotionally pretty dim and fall for all sorts of mental Negrobatics. This is why Northern European and East Asian types are the biggest suckers for PC in the West. They have decent IQ's but earnest emotions. This is why Italian-Americans are generally savvier. Smart or not, they don't trust nobody and don't believe in all the 'pledge of allegiance' crap.

https://youtu.be/V-TemfMIxrk?t=1m14s

Anyway, because blacks are collectively useless at maintaining civilization, they live in squalor and poverty. And whites see them as a Weak and Powerless people.
As a collective, blacks are among the weakest people on Earth. Put some blacks in some part of the world, and it will be stinkpot-ville and people will live in dire poverty, like in Haiti. It will be a pitiful nation in terms of economics and political power.

But just because blacks are collectively helpless, whites tend to think blacks are also individually helpless. So, a European nation takes in all these HEPLESS and pitiable Negroes from weak poor nations. It figures blacks will be pitiable in Europe too and be grateful for the guidance of White Folks who show them good will.
But on the individual level, the black man has immense power over the white man. He is more muscular, more aggressive, tougher, meaner, nastier, and thuggish.

So, what looks like a collective bunch of weak Negroes from afar suddenly turns into powerful Negro thugs close up. But because whites have this frozen image of the Weak Helpless Negro(sanctified further by 'white guilt' that says blacks suffer cuz of white imperialism), they have difficulty processing the Negro close-up. If the Negro is a weak, pitiable, noble, and suffering creature in need of compassion and mercy, why would he be such a nasty gross thug up close?

WHY?

Because he be crazy and nasty, that's why. Indeed, the Negro Paradox is he seems so helpless and pitiable because he is so wild, savage, and pitiless. Negroes rob, rape, pillage, loot, and holler in Africa and destroy their communities without pity. They act like baboons and chimps. That is why their nations are such hellholes. So, the Negro only seems helpless because he done help himself to whatever he can rob, rape, loot, and pillage.
But the Narrative is fixated on Negro as poor victim. In the US, after Negroes loot and burn down entire cities, there is the save-the-negro outcry to help them Negroes whose city has burned down.... by Negroes!!
When Negroes made a mess of New Orleans after the flood, they were seen as the victims even though their behavior made the natural disaster 10x worse.
Because of this Narrative Fixation, we are not supposed to discuss why Negroes mess up their own nations or communities.
Of course, when Negroes come to the West, they act the same way. In some ways, they act even worse since (1) they notice whites are weaker and can easily be beaten up (2) the PC narrative blames everything on whitey even when Negroes are the culprit. At least in Africa, if Negroes mess around, other Negroes get angry and whup their ass! Negroes don't make no excuse for Negroes among theyselves. If Negroes act out of order, other Negroes whup them and lynch their black ass.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d81_1466266456

So, at the very least, even though the Law of the Jungle in Africa makes Negroes act wild, they are met with swift Jungle Justice if they are caught by other Negroes.

But in the West, whites like to think themselves so 'progressive' and 'civilized'. So, they have all these conceited 'scientific', 'rational', and 'enlightened' notions of dealing with 'misguided' behavior. Little do they know that what works for white bonobos don't work for black chimpanzees. (That is why bonobos live in isolation from chimps. Nicer bonobos fear chimps as the Negroes among apes.) Blacks just see white social methodology as 'puss-ass' and 'fa**oty-ass' bullshi*. If anything, they feel more emboldened to act out since whitey seems so weak and wussy. Blacks see everything in binaries of 'badass' and 'punkass'. Tough mofos be 'badass' and are to be feared or admired. Nice white folks are 'punkass'. Also, Negroes feel insulted that these nice goo-goo 'punkass' weakling whites are giving them advice. They feel like chimps being advised by gibbons or some weak-ass monkey. According to the Law-of-Jungle mindset of the Negro, the only hierarchy that matters if 'badass' and 'punkass'. This is why Africans and Muslims don't take well to nice white ladies in the West who help them. They feel insulted that some weak-ass white bitch be telling them what is right and wrong. Ho!

Anyway, because African Negroes seem so poor and helpless, because of the MLK and Mandela cults of Negro saint-prophets, and because of Hollywood's depiction of Magic Negro(like in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and GREEN MILE), the world has this overly positive image of the Negro as creature eternally deserving of love, compassion, and sympathy. (Also, the Narrative of 'white guilt' would have us believe that all of Negro poverty & suffering is due to white evil or Chinese exploitation. There is even a strain of thought that suggests that Negroes are poor because they are so pure of heart and incapable of exploitative practices like capitalism. But anyone who knows anything about Negroes know that is so much ROTFL.) But up close, there is nothing more frightening and monstrous than the Negro. Indeed, while Negro is the most powerless people collectively, they are the most powerful people individually.
So, collectively, Negroes will turn Detroit into some run-down rust town where nothing works.
In contrast, Japanese will rebuild Hiroshima and Nagasaki into first-rate cities. So, collectively, Japanese are much more powerful than Negroes. But if you were to match Negroes and Japanese one-on-one, the Negroes will have Japanese for breakfast, esp as Japanese are even small by Asian standards. Negroes will break Japanese like toothpicks.
Among Europeans, French are not very big, and Negroes love to kick French butt. Frenchmen now pee in their pants when confronted by big muscular Negroes who dominate all of French sports. It's like in the movie CACHE where a French man back down to a threatening black African. (Importing masses of people who are stronger than your people is so dumb. But then, the race is under the delusion that race is just a social construct and all races are the same. But then, there is also the schizo-argument that the West should import more blacks precisely because they are better at sports and funky music. So, it's wrong to say EU should't bring in blacks because they can whup whitey, but it's okay to say EU should bring in more blacks because they are better at sports. It's as if these EU cucks believe black physical power will be limited ONLY to the sports field.)

But there is worse.
Now, with so many blacks committing crime and destroying property in the West, surely many white people in US and EU have been red-pilled into seeing the darker side of Negro. The destructive side. And they are having second thoughts about PC's lies about Negroes.
But then, this destructive side has a seductive side since humans are hairless apes attracted to the Power. Just like weaker dogs admire and cower before the stronger dogs, the whitey(even though or precisely because he/she is intimidated by the Negro) is slavishly addicted to the Negro as the icon of power and musicality and athleticism and virility and sexuality. (They went so far as to turn the Founding Fathers into Founding Brothas in HAMILTON.) So, it doesn't matter if Negroes torch the town, rape your mother, rob your house, loot the mall, and kill cops. Hey, it's football season again, and we gotta cheer for those mighty Negroes who be catching the ball and balling white cheerleaders and groupies. Hey, it's NCAA season, and we have to cheer for Negro ballers who be dunking the ball and humping the white ho. Hey, it's some badass rapper with a new song about how he be a badass or she be a hot ho. Gotta wiggle white butt in imitation of black cool. So, the most destructive part of Negro becomes the seductive siren call that leads whitey to his ruin. This is the way to Negrocalypse.

If blacks were ONLY destructive in the most ugly and unpleasant way, whites might sober up and fight back and send them back to Africa to swing from trees along with chimps and gibbons. But because Negro have powerful booming voice(that secularized whites hear as the voice of god), rhythm and beat(that whites love to dance too), mastery on sports field(that makes whites pee in their pants), big bouncy booties(that white girls want on their backsides as they 'twerk' to rap), and big dongs(that the white race now worships as totem), whites have become addicted to the very thing that will totally destroy them.

This is why Derbyshire is right. Mexicans in America are NOTHING compared to blacks who threaten Europe.

Now, some will say there are smart Negroes, especially among black African immigrants.
But this makes things even worse. At least with lower IQ Negroes, whites have some advantage. But if Negroes gain in both brawn and brain, he will totally whup whitey. Also, smart successful Negroes will colonize more white wombs to create disgusting vile creatures like Obama and that punk who made GET OUT and Colin Kaepernick. Imagine that: white wombs creating enemies of the white race who spit on whiteness.

Also, intelligence isn't everything. Even if smart, black personality and character generally lack conscience, balance, sobriety, sincerity, empathy, and mutuality. Black personality, smart or dumb, feels mainly in terms of (gots to)'have me' and 'gibs me'. Negroes are Negrocentric.
This is why black men and black women fight so often. They think they be right and everyone be wrong.

In the end, the Orangutan was right about Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES.
In the end, Bill Buckley was right about ape threat in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES.
Negroes are even worse and will be the undoing of civilization. But because what is destructive is also seductive in the Negro, white folks will go the way of the Eternals at the end of ZARDOZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuytpQT6gW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOB0-d9FSgE

Hillarious and enlightening, however some of your points need adjustment starting with : “dongs” = A recent study revealed that french men , on average, are endowed with the largest “dongs” wordwide, and I can recall my ( white) cousin, as a thirteen year old with his eleven inches, he retired as a high ranking naval officer, although I doubt that his anatomical attributes had any impact upon his military career.
Secondly : Black “badness” : This is all a front, having nothing to do with reality, rather an a method with which fear can be instilled within an otherwise worthy opponent.
I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : “Er hat mich geschlagen”.
Black “Badness” can be related to the “Glaring” pre-fight episode at the beginning of boxing match. Rocky Marciano did not engage in this phony cockyness, and he still kicked everyone’s butt but who challenged him.
“Seductiveness” : I was in a band decades ago with a black american tenor sax player ( he retired as an MD east coast US ). He told me that all of the white women who made a cult out of black guys were crazy and you could dick them but you couldn’t talk to them.
So it might be helpful to revise some of your otherwise valid viewpoints.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US army vet and pro jazz artist.

.I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : “Er hat mich geschlagen”.

Of all the topics on this thread, this one brings up the most "individual ocular evidence."

I.e.: There's no way this could be true, once I was in Brooklyn, and..."

Without a corresponding effort to increase the genetic capital and aggregate IQ of the average African population, the development caused by colonialism and Western investment in sub-Saharan Africa created the conditions for a massive dysgenic population explosion that will soon threaten to engulf Europe (if not the world). From this perspective, colonialism has had terrible long-term consequences.

I also think it's possible to make the argument that, in a psychological and cultural sense at least, blacks were better off prior to the existence of AIDS and modern weaponry in Africa. Yes, many African customs are utterly barbaric by Western standards. However, keep in mind that Africans evolved such customs over tens of thousands of years. They were not necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied under them. Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve for it is often not beneficial for the population impacted, even if material improvements occur.

Africans threaten to engulf Europe because of the weakness and cowardice of white Europeans, not because of any African population explosion.

So Nigeria, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Congo, Kenya, etc. can ramp up their population all they want. If Europe guards its borders and repels would-be invaders, who cares what other people do in their own countries?

But that is the last thing Merkel, Hollande, and May want to do. Death is preferable.

“Colonialism” used to cover for the act of extraction. Were the Japanese viewed as colonialists when they occupied Thailand, and Burma, building railroads to extract resources in the very same way westerners did it in Africa?

Blacks are dangerous, the biggest enemy of the white race and civilization.

Why? Blacks are both destructive and seductive. They are both pitiable and pitiless.

Because blacks are such dunderheads when it comes to creating and maintaining civilization, white folks look upon them with pity. "Oh, look at those pitiful Negroes." They seem so helpless, childlike, weak, and pitiable. They play on your heartstrings. They seem like po' desperate folks yelling, 'Hep me, hep me, pleeeze'. White folks look at the poverty in Africa and see helpless Negroes. White folks once watched movies like SOUNDER and saw helpless and hapless Negroes. And Negroes know this altruistic side of white folks. They know it exists even among white bigots who suddenly swell with compassion when they sees a Negro in need of HEP. Some Negroes exploit this side of whitey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

White folks may be smarter than Negroes but they are more earnest than the slickity-slack Negroes, and that can make whites emotionally pretty dim and fall for all sorts of mental Negrobatics. This is why Northern European and East Asian types are the biggest suckers for PC in the West. They have decent IQ's but earnest emotions. This is why Italian-Americans are generally savvier. Smart or not, they don't trust nobody and don't believe in all the 'pledge of allegiance' crap.

https://youtu.be/V-TemfMIxrk?t=1m14s

Anyway, because blacks are collectively useless at maintaining civilization, they live in squalor and poverty. And whites see them as a Weak and Powerless people.
As a collective, blacks are among the weakest people on Earth. Put some blacks in some part of the world, and it will be stinkpot-ville and people will live in dire poverty, like in Haiti. It will be a pitiful nation in terms of economics and political power.

But just because blacks are collectively helpless, whites tend to think blacks are also individually helpless. So, a European nation takes in all these HEPLESS and pitiable Negroes from weak poor nations. It figures blacks will be pitiable in Europe too and be grateful for the guidance of White Folks who show them good will.
But on the individual level, the black man has immense power over the white man. He is more muscular, more aggressive, tougher, meaner, nastier, and thuggish.

So, what looks like a collective bunch of weak Negroes from afar suddenly turns into powerful Negro thugs close up. But because whites have this frozen image of the Weak Helpless Negro(sanctified further by 'white guilt' that says blacks suffer cuz of white imperialism), they have difficulty processing the Negro close-up. If the Negro is a weak, pitiable, noble, and suffering creature in need of compassion and mercy, why would he be such a nasty gross thug up close?

WHY?

Because he be crazy and nasty, that's why. Indeed, the Negro Paradox is he seems so helpless and pitiable because he is so wild, savage, and pitiless. Negroes rob, rape, pillage, loot, and holler in Africa and destroy their communities without pity. They act like baboons and chimps. That is why their nations are such hellholes. So, the Negro only seems helpless because he done help himself to whatever he can rob, rape, loot, and pillage.
But the Narrative is fixated on Negro as poor victim. In the US, after Negroes loot and burn down entire cities, there is the save-the-negro outcry to help them Negroes whose city has burned down.... by Negroes!!
When Negroes made a mess of New Orleans after the flood, they were seen as the victims even though their behavior made the natural disaster 10x worse.
Because of this Narrative Fixation, we are not supposed to discuss why Negroes mess up their own nations or communities.
Of course, when Negroes come to the West, they act the same way. In some ways, they act even worse since (1) they notice whites are weaker and can easily be beaten up (2) the PC narrative blames everything on whitey even when Negroes are the culprit. At least in Africa, if Negroes mess around, other Negroes get angry and whup their ass! Negroes don't make no excuse for Negroes among theyselves. If Negroes act out of order, other Negroes whup them and lynch their black ass.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d81_1466266456

So, at the very least, even though the Law of the Jungle in Africa makes Negroes act wild, they are met with swift Jungle Justice if they are caught by other Negroes.

But in the West, whites like to think themselves so 'progressive' and 'civilized'. So, they have all these conceited 'scientific', 'rational', and 'enlightened' notions of dealing with 'misguided' behavior. Little do they know that what works for white bonobos don't work for black chimpanzees. (That is why bonobos live in isolation from chimps. Nicer bonobos fear chimps as the Negroes among apes.) Blacks just see white social methodology as 'puss-ass' and 'fa**oty-ass' bullshi*. If anything, they feel more emboldened to act out since whitey seems so weak and wussy. Blacks see everything in binaries of 'badass' and 'punkass'. Tough mofos be 'badass' and are to be feared or admired. Nice white folks are 'punkass'. Also, Negroes feel insulted that these nice goo-goo 'punkass' weakling whites are giving them advice. They feel like chimps being advised by gibbons or some weak-ass monkey. According to the Law-of-Jungle mindset of the Negro, the only hierarchy that matters if 'badass' and 'punkass'. This is why Africans and Muslims don't take well to nice white ladies in the West who help them. They feel insulted that some weak-ass white bitch be telling them what is right and wrong. Ho!

Anyway, because African Negroes seem so poor and helpless, because of the MLK and Mandela cults of Negro saint-prophets, and because of Hollywood's depiction of Magic Negro(like in TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and GREEN MILE), the world has this overly positive image of the Negro as creature eternally deserving of love, compassion, and sympathy. (Also, the Narrative of 'white guilt' would have us believe that all of Negro poverty & suffering is due to white evil or Chinese exploitation. There is even a strain of thought that suggests that Negroes are poor because they are so pure of heart and incapable of exploitative practices like capitalism. But anyone who knows anything about Negroes know that is so much ROTFL.) But up close, there is nothing more frightening and monstrous than the Negro. Indeed, while Negro is the most powerless people collectively, they are the most powerful people individually.
So, collectively, Negroes will turn Detroit into some run-down rust town where nothing works.
In contrast, Japanese will rebuild Hiroshima and Nagasaki into first-rate cities. So, collectively, Japanese are much more powerful than Negroes. But if you were to match Negroes and Japanese one-on-one, the Negroes will have Japanese for breakfast, esp as Japanese are even small by Asian standards. Negroes will break Japanese like toothpicks.
Among Europeans, French are not very big, and Negroes love to kick French butt. Frenchmen now pee in their pants when confronted by big muscular Negroes who dominate all of French sports. It's like in the movie CACHE where a French man back down to a threatening black African. (Importing masses of people who are stronger than your people is so dumb. But then, the race is under the delusion that race is just a social construct and all races are the same. But then, there is also the schizo-argument that the West should import more blacks precisely because they are better at sports and funky music. So, it's wrong to say EU should't bring in blacks because they can whup whitey, but it's okay to say EU should bring in more blacks because they are better at sports. It's as if these EU cucks believe black physical power will be limited ONLY to the sports field.)

But there is worse.
Now, with so many blacks committing crime and destroying property in the West, surely many white people in US and EU have been red-pilled into seeing the darker side of Negro. The destructive side. And they are having second thoughts about PC's lies about Negroes.
But then, this destructive side has a seductive side since humans are hairless apes attracted to the Power. Just like weaker dogs admire and cower before the stronger dogs, the whitey(even though or precisely because he/she is intimidated by the Negro) is slavishly addicted to the Negro as the icon of power and musicality and athleticism and virility and sexuality. (They went so far as to turn the Founding Fathers into Founding Brothas in HAMILTON.) So, it doesn't matter if Negroes torch the town, rape your mother, rob your house, loot the mall, and kill cops. Hey, it's football season again, and we gotta cheer for those mighty Negroes who be catching the ball and balling white cheerleaders and groupies. Hey, it's NCAA season, and we have to cheer for Negro ballers who be dunking the ball and humping the white ho. Hey, it's some badass rapper with a new song about how he be a badass or she be a hot ho. Gotta wiggle white butt in imitation of black cool. So, the most destructive part of Negro becomes the seductive siren call that leads whitey to his ruin. This is the way to Negrocalypse.

If blacks were ONLY destructive in the most ugly and unpleasant way, whites might sober up and fight back and send them back to Africa to swing from trees along with chimps and gibbons. But because Negro have powerful booming voice(that secularized whites hear as the voice of god), rhythm and beat(that whites love to dance too), mastery on sports field(that makes whites pee in their pants), big bouncy booties(that white girls want on their backsides as they 'twerk' to rap), and big dongs(that the white race now worships as totem), whites have become addicted to the very thing that will totally destroy them.

This is why Derbyshire is right. Mexicans in America are NOTHING compared to blacks who threaten Europe.

Now, some will say there are smart Negroes, especially among black African immigrants.
But this makes things even worse. At least with lower IQ Negroes, whites have some advantage. But if Negroes gain in both brawn and brain, he will totally whup whitey. Also, smart successful Negroes will colonize more white wombs to create disgusting vile creatures like Obama and that punk who made GET OUT and Colin Kaepernick. Imagine that: white wombs creating enemies of the white race who spit on whiteness.

Also, intelligence isn't everything. Even if smart, black personality and character generally lack conscience, balance, sobriety, sincerity, empathy, and mutuality. Black personality, smart or dumb, feels mainly in terms of (gots to)'have me' and 'gibs me'. Negroes are Negrocentric.
This is why black men and black women fight so often. They think they be right and everyone be wrong.

In the end, the Orangutan was right about Taylor in PLANET OF THE APES.
In the end, Bill Buckley was right about ape threat in ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES.
Negroes are even worse and will be the undoing of civilization. But because what is destructive is also seductive in the Negro, white folks will go the way of the Eternals at the end of ZARDOZ.

1. So Rwandan/Ugandan/British/US theft (often via slave labour mining; I refer to the Coltan mining) and genocide (5-10 million) does not harm DRC? Pray tell. Word on the street is that the Rwandan economy was doing well enough.

2. British colonialism initially may have medically improved the lives of Kenyans, including Gikuyu, but the policy had become decidedly starvationist (via taxation, no less! despite resource extraction; such consistent Friedmanite/etc libertarianism) by the time of the Mau Mau. By the way, despite the relevant agreement with regards to the (Maa) White Highlands being decidedly a temporary one, Kenya had to pay reparations (!!) for their return---I take it that your firm commitment to property rights doesn't extend to the Maa.

Then again, such 'libertarian' silence about the mechanics of colonialism, in favour of broadsides regarding alleged cumulative effect (40% of Angolans were de facto slaves until independence in 1975, and the country had a single black university educated citizen) is always telling. When such matters are brought up, the fallback position is to point to south-western Nigeria, as university education had extended to substantial portions of the population. But here we face a crunch---south western Nigeria had been colonized for much longer than the rest of black colonial Africa, and despite substantial taxation, other colonies were required to keep it up. In this regard, it is bemusing in light of Britain's deindustrialization, that it is following the Swiss Banking scam model, though even then, it cannot fund the needs of its ethnic native population, and must bring in foreigners in order to entice their funds.

3. Sweden did have several colonies at various times, and it also had a large resource base (minerals and surface area per unit population). Moreover, it had decidedly favourable trade relations with the Soviet Union, as did Finland, post war, although Sweden avoided the destruction of the war itself, having been neutral.

There is another issue here. National wealth accumulation is after all related to profitability, which in plain accounting terms, is the difference between moneys paid to obtain material and labour, and moneys obtained for product sold. Which is why third world refinement of ores (except for the dirtiest stages of said refinement) is usually discouraged. Case in point, Jamaican Bauxite, with again a "firm commitment" (yes, sarcasm is warranted) to the 'free market,' much as during the colonial period.

For shear gallows humor, one may consider the case of the biggest mining operator country in Africa, namely Canada. Despite its immense territory and low population, it still finds its foreign exchange position sufficiently uncomfortable to run a litany of mining-related policy scams (Canada in Africa, Yves Engler). But what makes it even richer is, despite its opposition to producer cartels abroad, Canada runs its own producer cartel, CANPOTEX. Funny what high standards of living may be obtained.

4. I take it that Britain's intervention in Egypt, to stop industrialization, around the same time as Sweden's industrialization, doesn't count. Nor does British policy.

5. I take it that the dollar wall street regime doesn't count either. The fact that your foreign aid racket (federal government pays US company money to do work in poor country, with subsequent US dollar denominated debt for poor country; books like Michael Hudson's Superimperialism and Graham Hancock's Lords of Poverty come to mind---the problem is hardly limited to the US) is designed to force privatization should, by your beliefs, improve the poor country's economy, notwithstanding that most of the US technological sector's foundational research is state funded. Then again, there is that unpleasant little matter of a certain economic study...

In a sense, post-colonial is like post-slavery. Many of the nasty institutions remain, including the post-colonial leadership, which was, despite colonial marketing efforts (especially in Kenya) largely colonial native leadership. The main difference is that the extractive powers have lost their legal responsibilities, and have found that they can be even more extractive under 'independence'.

Hillarious and enlightening, however some of your points need adjustment starting with : "dongs" = A recent study revealed that french men , on average, are endowed with the largest "dongs" wordwide, and I can recall my ( white) cousin, as a thirteen year old with his eleven inches, he retired as a high ranking naval officer, although I doubt that his anatomical attributes had any impact upon his military career.
Secondly : Black "badness" : This is all a front, having nothing to do with reality, rather an a method with which fear can be instilled within an otherwise worthy opponent.
I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : "Er hat mich geschlagen".
Black "Badness" can be related to the "Glaring" pre-fight episode at the beginning of boxing match. Rocky Marciano did not engage in this phony cockyness, and he still kicked everyone's butt but who challenged him.
"Seductiveness" : I was in a band decades ago with a black american tenor sax player ( he retired as an MD east coast US ). He told me that all of the white women who made a cult out of black guys were crazy and you could dick them but you couldn't talk to them.
So it might be helpful to revise some of your otherwise valid viewpoints.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US army vet and pro jazz artist.

“A recent study revealed that french men , on average, are endowed with the largest “dongs” wordwide”

This is a bit simplistic (understatement!). Whether one buys into HBD or not (I partly do) the effects of western colonialism on Sub Saharan Africa were pretty anti-developmental overall. In order of importance (in my view) 1. Colonialism prevented 'strong' tribes/ethnic groups, like the Tutsi, from building larger, more 'modern' states organically - something which the UN system and aid system has continued to prevent (see Congo and imagine how much better off it would be if the Tutsis had been allowed to conquer it). 2. Colonialism mostly interrupted and stopped nascent capitalism in Africa rather than supporting it (contra liberal globalist charlatan Ferguson), by redirecting resources to mines and export crops and away from organically developing trade and agriculture. 3. Contra Mercer's un-historical comment about all powerful 'chiefs, colonialism actually reinforced traditional power structures and 'traditionalized' societies and in its absence African societies may have (through war) been forced to develop in 'modern' directions such as private property and taxation systems, etc.

The medicine and 'clean water' stuff seems entirely marginal to me - compared to the damage colonialism did in preventing the kind of Darwinian struggles in Africa that might have built some viable modern states (albeit with the qualifications that Jared Diamond, HBD, etc have about the ceiling on African development).

Of course much of this applies to other parts of the world too - esp. South Asia, and I suppose from a meta Darwinian point of view you could argue that 'the strong make the weak weaker' as a matter of course - but there is an element of 'unfairness' in this - and to recognize it doesn't make you an SJW.

In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.
[...]
Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ.
[...]Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.

Yes - but I wasn't trying to defend wretched post colonial African regimes. Put it this way: in order of best to worst: 1. No colonialism: African states achieve their own micro Meiji restorations and engage in state-building-through-competition. 2 Colonial States 3. Post colonial states (although you would surely have to make exceptions for the horrors of the Belgian Congo when choosing between 2 and 3).

“While old habits die hard, most “people prefer Western technology and would rather be able to feed their children and elderly than kill them,” he notes in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.”

“One dreadfully off-course notion has it that the colonial powers plundered Africa and failed to plow back profits into the place. This manifest absurdity is belied by the major agricultural, mineral, commercial and industrial installations throughout the continent. “

With the sole intention of transferring that wealth back to the mother country.

“The infrastructure in Africa was built by the colonial powers.”

EUROPEAN infrastructure. African empires that their own unique services and facilities best suited for their own society. Their progress was interrupted by European colonialis and imperialism. They desired to be left alone to their own designs.

“Without the ingenuity of men—iron, aluminum, coal and oil would lie purposeless and pristine in the wildernesses, and the matter and energy abundant on earth would come to naught.”

Indeed. And how were those resources procured from Africa by Europe? Negotiated commerce that respected tribal sovereignty, I think not.

“Before colonialism, sub-Saharan Africa was a subsistence economy; because of colonialism it became a monetized economy. Before colonialism, there were only bush back roads through which men trekked with goods on their backs. During colonialism roads were built. In pre-colonial times the absence of public security made investment in Africa too risky. Post-colonialism, investment flowed. With the colonial administrations came scientific agriculture, introduced by the colonists and by “foreign private organizations and persons under the comparative security of colonial rule, and usually in the face of formidable obstacles.”

You assume technological and material progress ought to be universally revered. Perhaps Africans relished the fact that they had independently developed their own political and economic institutions rather than be infiltrated by foreigners. Invade the world, invite the world.

The simple truth is that most ordinary Africans were perfectly content to allow the European colonial powers to run their countries, as long as they were generally left alone to live their lives. When the shoe pinched - as it sometimes did - they pushed back but in most cases they were unconcerned with who was in the capital city and they had little day-to-day contact with whites. Life was slowly getting better for most people and that was enough. Almost without exception the trouble in African countries was caused by a tiny class of local malcontents who had been educated in Europe and figured out that by spouting slogans and collaborating with European liberal fools they could seize political power and enjoy the fruits of looting and plunder. A goodly number of these people were latent psychopaths, as they proved once they were in the presidential palace. That, in a nutshell, is the post-colonial history of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The simple truth is that most ordinary Africans were genuinely bitter when European colonial powers sought to run their countries, for they preferred to be generally left alone to live their lives. When the shoe pinched – as it sometimes did – they pushed back since they had daily contact with whites. While Africans did benefit from European “generosity”, it was at the expense of their culture. The trouble in African countries began when tribal groups set aside their differences and united to remove European rule. Once expunged from their land, these tribes resumed their wars that had been kept under wraps by the iron fist of their colonial masters, suffering from crumbling infrastructure and institutions designed primarily for European elites. That is the post-colonial history of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The negro is a scourge upon the earth. They must be removed from the West and brought back to their ancestral lands in Africa. From that point the whole of Sub Saharan Africa needs to be quarantined; all entry points and exit points need to be secured. Naval vessels from Europe and the US would need to patrol the shores of Africa and immediately shoot down vessels attempting to leave.

After a period of 100 years Africa will have under gone a massive transformation and its population would once again be under the control of Mother Nature, and not do gooders from western nations playing God. At which point the blacks in Africa would be indistinguishable from the local animal wildlife. Recolonization would then take place and the Africans would be given a small corner of undesirable land somewhere on the continent. That area would also be completely sealed off from the world. If the population gets out of hand, firearms and ammunition would be air dropped in and the blacks would do what blacks do best - slaughter each other.

Mistakes of the past should never be revisited. Allowing the negro to occupy our inner cities has been a disaster with disastrous results. Intermingling with negro is simply not an option any longer. They must be kept separate from humankind.

You have a knack for fiction writing. Contact Vox Day at Castalia House.

I sometimes wonder whether the Africans have a point, albeit not one that they would care to acknowledge. The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave. The most humane thing Europeans could have done before leaving is to have guided Africans back to sustainable subsistence farming. A reversion to subsistence agriculture, after the coming population collapse, will likely be the best outcome that Africans can ever hope for. The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America.

“The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave.”

First, it’s not European, it’s human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

“The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America.”

Nope. European invaded and invited Africa and Asia. Moreover, Africans and Asians aren’t imported to Europe and North America, they are given opportunities to come over.

"First, it’s not European, it’s human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people."

500 yrs of colonial rule?

Most of Africa was untouched because of malaria.

European colonization of Africa happened in earnest only in 19th century. Until then, Europeans mostly remained in harbors to buy ivory or slaves. They didn't dare venture in far.

Also, large parts of black Africa were in contact with high civilization of North Africa for much longer than Northern Europeans.

How come those blacks didn't develop great civilization?

Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, etc were all in contact with high civilizations of Egypt and Libya.

Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

Hillarious and enlightening, however some of your points need adjustment starting with : "dongs" = A recent study revealed that french men , on average, are endowed with the largest "dongs" wordwide, and I can recall my ( white) cousin, as a thirteen year old with his eleven inches, he retired as a high ranking naval officer, although I doubt that his anatomical attributes had any impact upon his military career.
Secondly : Black "badness" : This is all a front, having nothing to do with reality, rather an a method with which fear can be instilled within an otherwise worthy opponent.
I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : "Er hat mich geschlagen".
Black "Badness" can be related to the "Glaring" pre-fight episode at the beginning of boxing match. Rocky Marciano did not engage in this phony cockyness, and he still kicked everyone's butt but who challenged him.
"Seductiveness" : I was in a band decades ago with a black american tenor sax player ( he retired as an MD east coast US ). He told me that all of the white women who made a cult out of black guys were crazy and you could dick them but you couldn't talk to them.
So it might be helpful to revise some of your otherwise valid viewpoints.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US army vet and pro jazz artist.

.
I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : “Er hat mich geschlagen”.

Of all the topics on this thread, this one brings up the most “individual ocular evidence.”

I.e.: There’s no way this could be true, once I was in Brooklyn, and…”

all you have to do is say the number 70 for IQ, and you do not need to know anything else.

Corvinus is a fool or a gangster.

the old commie left, the new commie left, and the new new commie left. with its running puppies of femi-commies, complainers of every denomination…on the children’s crusade

Except I would add that there is a newish wrinkle in the White Man’s Burthen with the kids these days.

back in the 60s etc one could reasonably state that making the Ultimate Anti-racist Statement of actually marrying a negro, was just too much to ask of a Good Person.

Today, you get a merit badge for so doing. Yet, all these white kids on the social justice crusade still won’t do it. Sooooo, the guilt argument comes into play again, but maybe with another Lost Cause but cool now…mexicans. Most whites would tend to defend their resistance to marrying a black because of all the Bad News of the last 50 years or so….but mexers are an easier sell to the souls of White folks, who still don’t want to marry them BUT the Guilt complex, coupled with the Stockholm Syndrome, especially with regard to the muslims, is activated. Whoopie…

Mexers are not as Other as blacks, and they are smarter, by about 5 points. Then the muslims are the Absolute Other for our times, and present themselves to our White kids as perfect victims…maybe with even the jews figuring into the equation, since probably the average social justice warthog digger wants to divest from Israel. They got something right for a change.

Now we got the religious revivalism of sanctuary cities, colleges, even states. Sanctuary is traditionally a religiously based observance. Asylum is political, and goes back to antiquity.
The kids and their lib-rad mentors have gotten Religion.

Why? Besides the White Altruism Quotient…very high by comparison to other races, there is the compensation for not-marrying, not adopting, the untermenschen, so these tortured white souls /psyches start to scream about Equality! again. And again. Justice! Project your guilt onto the scapegoat…white men for sure.

Another factor for our kids is their general level of anxiety about making a living. Blame the Power Structure, which is white male of course. The World Sucks, and White Men are to blame. Sort of like our Corvinis here. 500 years of Oppression!!

Black IQ in Africa, 70. Muzzie from the ME…84. Mexer half breed, 90.. I dunno what the average IQ of our White warthog/diggers is but i would guess abut 105, just smart enough to get themselves in trouble These libs Think, and God laughs.

Will us deplorables give the libs sanctuary when the tide turns, as it already has? Depends. Personally, I am not religious. It will be the Left that starts the killing, they historically have always done so. However, this time the right is armed and getting more and more dangerous.

In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.[...]Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ. [...] Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.

Yes – but I wasn’t trying to defend wretched post colonial African regimes. Put it this way: in order of best to worst: 1. No colonialism: African states achieve their own micro Meiji restorations and engage in state-building-through-competition. 2 Colonial States 3. Post colonial states (although you would surely have to make exceptions for the horrors of the Belgian Congo when choosing between 2 and 3).

Excellent points to think about, thanks! Couple of questions:
1) I thought Sweden's colonies were like dipping a toe into the water - not very vast or extensive, no?
2) The 5-10 million you mentioned, that's Belgium in the Congo right (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20hardint.html) - or is that something else?

Peace.

In fairness to Sweden, the colonies weren’t significant to the 20th century, but I couldn’t resist.

While Belgium did off about 10M, I was referring to the death toll that Kagame’s invasion caused.

see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:http://codoh.comNo name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

If you will excuse my ignorance, but re: mass graves, weren’t many at say, Auschwitz, cremated ?

Supposedly, but there is no evidence, either in terms of logistic documents (the necessary supplies being sent to these camps, etc.) or archeological upheaval (burying then exhuming millions of bodies) of cremations on the massive scale claimed (either at Auschwitz or the "pure death camps" like Treblinka). Not to mention absurdities like open-air pyres, etc.

Colianialism did introduce Africa to modern tech. and amenities. But these weren’t allocated so as to assist natives, but were instead brought in so as to help colonialists continue their pillage.

Take Zambia for instance, formerly under the Brits , then called Northern Rhodesia. The only railroad network back then ran from the Copper mining region down to South African ports. As a way to make the looting of resources easier and quicker.

With regards to your comments on Australia being a prosperous country without colonising any region…….Australia IS/WAS a colony. And if colonialism did as much good as you claim, the world would have had alot of Aborigenes of note.

"The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave."

First, it's not European, it's human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills--the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

"The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America."

Nope. European invaded and invited Africa and Asia. Moreover, Africans and Asians aren't imported to Europe and North America, they are given opportunities to come over.

“First, it’s not European, it’s human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.”

500 yrs of colonial rule?

Most of Africa was untouched because of malaria.

European colonization of Africa happened in earnest only in 19th century. Until then, Europeans mostly remained in harbors to buy ivory or slaves. They didn’t dare venture in far.

Also, large parts of black Africa were in contact with high civilization of North Africa for much longer than Northern Europeans.

How come those blacks didn’t develop great civilization?

Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, etc were all in contact with high civilizations of Egypt and Libya.

If you will excuse my ignorance, but re: mass graves, weren't many at say, Auschwitz, cremated ?

Supposedly, but there is no evidence, either in terms of logistic documents (the necessary supplies being sent to these camps, etc.) or archeological upheaval (burying then exhuming millions of bodies) of cremations on the massive scale claimed (either at Auschwitz or the “pure death camps” like Treblinka). Not to mention absurdities like open-air pyres, etc.

Other than at Treblinka, why would they bury and then exhume? Why not burn the corpse shortly after death? Bones are apparently visible even on the surface, after rain, at Treblinka, and identifiably human remains were said to be strewn around as late as the 1960s.

At Sobibor, bone fragments have been identified, and even name tags identifying known victims have been found. So despite an order to destroy documents, the Germans weren't sufficiently careful. FWIW, I'm dubious about Demjanuk's (misspelled as Demjankuk in the article) guilt, and I think that prosecution was dubious.

But I should correct the BBC article I linked earlier---Katyn was German---the rounds found at the killing sites were 8mm. Also, I think serious future research should have indifference to Jewish law, and actually dig up the remains. Most of the victims weren't particularly religious, especially in western Europe.

Supposedly, but there is no evidence, either in terms of logistic documents (the necessary supplies being sent to these camps, etc.) or archeological upheaval (burying then exhuming millions of bodies) of cremations on the massive scale claimed (either at Auschwitz or the "pure death camps" like Treblinka). Not to mention absurdities like open-air pyres, etc.

Other than at Treblinka, why would they bury and then exhume? Why not burn the corpse shortly after death? Bones are apparently visible even on the surface, after rain, at Treblinka, and identifiably human remains were said to be strewn around as late as the 1960s.

Sorry, is that picture meant to be serious? That literally millions of bodies were disposed of by the Germans this way?

Re. camps like Treblinka, supposedly after gassing by Diesel engine (either from a captured Soviet tank or submarine (!)), the bodies were buried. Then, as the Germans started to lose the war (but almost a year before the Red Army arrived), almost a million bodies were dug up and burned in stacked up piles (during the wet and rainy Polish fall and winter). Apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of such massive excavation, the claims are just thoroughly implausible.

The issue is not whether people died or were killed at these camps, the issue concerns the numbers, and there is no evidence that 2M (or whatever) people were killed at the Reinhard camps, dug up, and cremated.

Supposedly, but there is no evidence, either in terms of logistic documents (the necessary supplies being sent to these camps, etc.) or archeological upheaval (burying then exhuming millions of bodies) of cremations on the massive scale claimed (either at Auschwitz or the "pure death camps" like Treblinka). Not to mention absurdities like open-air pyres, etc.

At Sobibor, bone fragments have been identified, and even name tags identifying known victims have been found. So despite an order to destroy documents, the Germans weren’t sufficiently careful. FWIW, I’m dubious about Demjanuk’s (misspelled as Demjankuk in the article) guilt, and I think that prosecution was dubious.

But I should correct the BBC article I linked earlier—Katyn was German—the rounds found at the killing sites were 8mm. Also, I think serious future research should have indifference to Jewish law, and actually dig up the remains. Most of the victims weren’t particularly religious, especially in western Europe.

If I recall, that wasn't a Star of David but a commercial symbol for some pharmacy.

Again, the Germans killed a lot of Jews, enough to fear condemnation after the war (and so would be motivated to try to cover up their actions), that's not the dispute. The issue concerns the magnitude and scope as held by the official story, neither of which are supported by evidence. Hence the need to outlaw discussion of the topic or appeal to religious law to proscribe full forensic investigation.

"First, it’s not European, it’s human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people."

500 yrs of colonial rule?

Most of Africa was untouched because of malaria.

European colonization of Africa happened in earnest only in 19th century. Until then, Europeans mostly remained in harbors to buy ivory or slaves. They didn't dare venture in far.

Also, large parts of black Africa were in contact with high civilization of North Africa for much longer than Northern Europeans.

How come those blacks didn't develop great civilization?

Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, etc were all in contact with high civilizations of Egypt and Libya.

.I vividly recall an incident in Germany years ago witnessing a big black guy, ( african ) lying on the pavement, crying, and telling the german police about some german guy having beat him up : “Er hat mich geschlagen”.

Of all the topics on this thread, this one brings up the most "individual ocular evidence."

I.e.: There's no way this could be true, once I was in Brooklyn, and..."

“The most individual ocular evidence”

Yeah sure I just made it up to fit the theme of the post I was responding to.

Nice try.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborene qualified US army vet and pro jazz artist.

Other than at Treblinka, why would they bury and then exhume? Why not burn the corpse shortly after death? Bones are apparently visible even on the surface, after rain, at Treblinka, and identifiably human remains were said to be strewn around as late as the 1960s.

Sorry, is that picture meant to be serious? That literally millions of bodies were disposed of by the Germans this way?

Re. camps like Treblinka, supposedly after gassing by Diesel engine (either from a captured Soviet tank or submarine (!)), the bodies were buried. Then, as the Germans started to lose the war (but almost a year before the Red Army arrived), almost a million bodies were dug up and burned in stacked up piles (during the wet and rainy Polish fall and winter). Apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of such massive excavation, the claims are just thoroughly implausible.

The issue is not whether people died or were killed at these camps, the issue concerns the numbers, and there is no evidence that 2M (or whatever) people were killed at the Reinhard camps, dug up, and cremated.

The use of diesel trucks (Walter Rauf's idea) goes back to long before the camps. It is more likely to have been German, but that is neither here nor there.

The dates given for exhumation of corpses spans 1942-3, so some of it would have happened in spring and summer---it is doubtful that they could exhume in winter. At any rate, I'm not aware of the seasons of burning, though if the corpses were left to rot in Autumn, that would save on fuel---the biggest problem in consuming biomass in fire is always water content, and dried bone would be easier to burn. Moreover, if it was mainly corpses near the surface that were treated this way, it would make sense from a practical point of view, for the purpose of hiding the crimes. Thus 2M did not have to be disinterred, and probably 50k would have sufficed. Even then, they found identifiable bones, as mentioned.

Reference that the symbols on the tiles on the floor in the (since demolished) buildings at Treblinka are from a pharmacy, rather than a star of David?

At Sobibor, bone fragments have been identified, and even name tags identifying known victims have been found. So despite an order to destroy documents, the Germans weren't sufficiently careful. FWIW, I'm dubious about Demjanuk's (misspelled as Demjankuk in the article) guilt, and I think that prosecution was dubious.

But I should correct the BBC article I linked earlier---Katyn was German---the rounds found at the killing sites were 8mm. Also, I think serious future research should have indifference to Jewish law, and actually dig up the remains. Most of the victims weren't particularly religious, especially in western Europe.

If I recall, that wasn’t a Star of David but a commercial symbol for some pharmacy.

Again, the Germans killed a lot of Jews, enough to fear condemnation after the war (and so would be motivated to try to cover up their actions), that’s not the dispute. The issue concerns the magnitude and scope as held by the official story, neither of which are supported by evidence. Hence the need to outlaw discussion of the topic or appeal to religious law to proscribe full forensic investigation.

Sorry, is that picture meant to be serious? That literally millions of bodies were disposed of by the Germans this way?

Re. camps like Treblinka, supposedly after gassing by Diesel engine (either from a captured Soviet tank or submarine (!)), the bodies were buried. Then, as the Germans started to lose the war (but almost a year before the Red Army arrived), almost a million bodies were dug up and burned in stacked up piles (during the wet and rainy Polish fall and winter). Apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of such massive excavation, the claims are just thoroughly implausible.

The issue is not whether people died or were killed at these camps, the issue concerns the numbers, and there is no evidence that 2M (or whatever) people were killed at the Reinhard camps, dug up, and cremated.

The use of diesel trucks (Walter Rauf’s idea) goes back to long before the camps. It is more likely to have been German, but that is neither here nor there.

The dates given for exhumation of corpses spans 1942-3, so some of it would have happened in spring and summer—it is doubtful that they could exhume in winter. At any rate, I’m not aware of the seasons of burning, though if the corpses were left to rot in Autumn, that would save on fuel—the biggest problem in consuming biomass in fire is always water content, and dried bone would be easier to burn. Moreover, if it was mainly corpses near the surface that were treated this way, it would make sense from a practical point of view, for the purpose of hiding the crimes. Thus 2M did not have to be disinterred, and probably 50k would have sufficed. Even then, they found identifiable bones, as mentioned.

Reference that the symbols on the tiles on the floor in the (since demolished) buildings at Treblinka are from a pharmacy, rather than a star of David?

Any competent engineer KNOWS that diesel exhaust contains almost NO carbon monoxide. As Germany would have had to import diesel fuel, using it for such a purpose would have been a monumental waste.
I don't believe a shred of it.

The use of diesel trucks (Walter Rauf's idea) goes back to long before the camps. It is more likely to have been German, but that is neither here nor there.

The dates given for exhumation of corpses spans 1942-3, so some of it would have happened in spring and summer---it is doubtful that they could exhume in winter. At any rate, I'm not aware of the seasons of burning, though if the corpses were left to rot in Autumn, that would save on fuel---the biggest problem in consuming biomass in fire is always water content, and dried bone would be easier to burn. Moreover, if it was mainly corpses near the surface that were treated this way, it would make sense from a practical point of view, for the purpose of hiding the crimes. Thus 2M did not have to be disinterred, and probably 50k would have sufficed. Even then, they found identifiable bones, as mentioned.

Reference that the symbols on the tiles on the floor in the (since demolished) buildings at Treblinka are from a pharmacy, rather than a star of David?

Any competent engineer KNOWS that diesel exhaust contains almost NO carbon monoxide. As Germany would have had to import diesel fuel, using it for such a purpose would have been a monumental waste.
I don’t believe a shred of it.

With adjustments, one can get 0.6% (6000ppm) CO, which is sufficient for the purpose.

Regarding the German fuel needs, one may perform a calculation, using in this example the dimensions of what is claimed for Auschwitz, namely 800 people (perhaps including children; I'll use 200 people to make my point) in a volume of 17mx4.5mx~3m (230m^3) or 1.15m^3 per capita.

About 20% of the exhaust gas would be CO2, corresponding to 0.23m^3 CO2 which must be accounted for (I'm ignoring nitrates, which would further reduce the Diesel requirement). This is 10 mol CO2 per capita (divide by 4 if you wish to use 800 killed at a time), which gives 120g carbon. All the carbon must come from diesel fuel. Diesel is about 85% carbon by mass, which gives 141g diesel fuel per capita, or 170ml fuel per capita. A million victims would require 170kilolitre, or about 45 thousand gallons (hence Zyklon B as a replacement?) . This needs to be compared to annual German usage for the scale to serve as a gauge of probability.

In 1938, Germany consumed 44 million barrels of oil. Modern refineries can make about 12 gallons of combined distillate (heating oil) and diesel fuel from a barrel (42 gallons) of oil. Assume that half of that (6 gallons) is diesel, and that it was a quarter as much during WWII (I don't know where to find earlier refinery yields, but this will give a liberal estimate of fuel required, and thus tend to overestimate the cost), to give 1.5 gallons per barrel diesel. Thus the 45 thousand gallons of diesel fuel would require 30 thousand barrels, or 0.067% of the annual (1938) oil consumption of Germany---to kill a million by carbon monoxide poisoning. Double that if we take into account control to guarantee killing. So your argument strikes me as spurious.

More generally the sheer logistics of an industrial killing operation in the midst of a two-front war against adversaries with far greater resources is implausible to me. There were mass killings, no doubt, but in the context of the unlimited warfare the Germans had to engage in, and not on the scale claimed.

The use of diesel trucks (Walter Rauf's idea) goes back to long before the camps. It is more likely to have been German, but that is neither here nor there.

The dates given for exhumation of corpses spans 1942-3, so some of it would have happened in spring and summer---it is doubtful that they could exhume in winter. At any rate, I'm not aware of the seasons of burning, though if the corpses were left to rot in Autumn, that would save on fuel---the biggest problem in consuming biomass in fire is always water content, and dried bone would be easier to burn. Moreover, if it was mainly corpses near the surface that were treated this way, it would make sense from a practical point of view, for the purpose of hiding the crimes. Thus 2M did not have to be disinterred, and probably 50k would have sufficed. Even then, they found identifiable bones, as mentioned.

Reference that the symbols on the tiles on the floor in the (since demolished) buildings at Treblinka are from a pharmacy, rather than a star of David?

I hypothesized rather than stated that the Germans left bodies out to rot. From an engineering perspective (whose health was to be compromised, other than the Jews that did the digging?) it makes good sense. Concentrate the corpses in a smallish area, and let nature take its course.

One of the links I gave you discuss identifiably human remains until the sixties.

Any competent engineer KNOWS that diesel exhaust contains almost NO carbon monoxide. As Germany would have had to import diesel fuel, using it for such a purpose would have been a monumental waste.
I don't believe a shred of it.

With adjustments, one can get 0.6% (6000ppm) CO, which is sufficient for the purpose.

Regarding the German fuel needs, one may perform a calculation, using in this example the dimensions of what is claimed for Auschwitz, namely 800 people (perhaps including children; I’ll use 200 people to make my point) in a volume of 17mx4.5mx~3m (230m^3) or 1.15m^3 per capita.

About 20% of the exhaust gas would be CO2, corresponding to 0.23m^3 CO2 which must be accounted for (I’m ignoring nitrates, which would further reduce the Diesel requirement). This is 10 mol CO2 per capita (divide by 4 if you wish to use 800 killed at a time), which gives 120g carbon. All the carbon must come from diesel fuel. Diesel is about 85% carbon by mass, which gives 141g diesel fuel per capita, or 170ml fuel per capita. A million victims would require 170kilolitre, or about 45 thousand gallons (hence Zyklon B as a replacement?) . This needs to be compared to annual German usage for the scale to serve as a gauge of probability.

In 1938, Germany consumed 44 million barrels of oil. Modern refineries can make about 12 gallons of combined distillate (heating oil) and diesel fuel from a barrel (42 gallons) of oil. Assume that half of that (6 gallons) is diesel, and that it was a quarter as much during WWII (I don’t know where to find earlier refinery yields, but this will give a liberal estimate of fuel required, and thus tend to overestimate the cost), to give 1.5 gallons per barrel diesel. Thus the 45 thousand gallons of diesel fuel would require 30 thousand barrels, or 0.067% of the annual (1938) oil consumption of Germany—to kill a million by carbon monoxide poisoning. Double that if we take into account control to guarantee killing. So your argument strikes me as spurious.

What is the basis of your claim that the Germans left piles of bodies out to simply rot? Sounds like a health nightmare, not a very bright way to run a large camp.

Ultimately, there is little evidence 2M people were killled at these camps, though doubtless some were.

I stand corrected on the tiles.

I hypothesized rather than stated that the Germans left bodies out to rot. From an engineering perspective (whose health was to be compromised, other than the Jews that did the digging?) it makes good sense. Concentrate the corpses in a smallish area, and let nature take its course.

One of the links I gave you discuss identifiably human remains until the sixties.

Yet again I point out that I don't dispute that people died at Treblinka, so I don't know why you keep bringing up irrelevant points (nothing in that link supports the claim that 900K or whatever were killed there).

Your argument re. body disposal seems to be to the effect that, we "know" the Germans killed millions, so let's hypothesize how they got rid of the evidence. Rather circular, I think.

I hypothesized rather than stated that the Germans left bodies out to rot. From an engineering perspective (whose health was to be compromised, other than the Jews that did the digging?) it makes good sense. Concentrate the corpses in a smallish area, and let nature take its course.

One of the links I gave you discuss identifiably human remains until the sixties.

Yet again I point out that I don’t dispute that people died at Treblinka, so I don’t know why you keep bringing up irrelevant points (nothing in that link supports the claim that 900K or whatever were killed there).

Your argument re. body disposal seems to be to the effect that, we “know” the Germans killed millions, so let’s hypothesize how they got rid of the evidence. Rather circular, I think.

Your first argument was that the killing of Jews is overestimated. Hence you have been thus far posting arguments that suggest that the evidence that is commonly used is in contradiction with large scale killing---by itself, a valid application of the modus tollens.

I attacked your argument by showing that the evidence is partially extant (your second claim is by nature hypothetical, as none exists until it is found). All that follows is that you cannot logically conclude that no large scale killing occurred. The present status of the matter is that there is archaeological evidence of such structures that eyewitnesses alleged to have seen, and remains that do not broadly contradict the understanding of the killings, e.g. as developed by Hilberg. This is the nature of scientific inquiry; the onus is on those who seek to test the current understanding, and soil analysis and digs are perfectly reasonable approaches to pursue the matter.

see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:http://codoh.comNo name calling, level playing field debate here:http://forum.codoh.com

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

Remember the Nazis had super duper magic crematoriums so efficient they could burn hundreds of bodies at a time. And unlike modern crematoriums theyleft nothing at all, not even the bits of bones and coarse ashes left by modern crematoriums

Huh? I've posted links in this thread of articles where bone remains were found. As for ash, those of us who've ever grown fruit know that trees love ash (hint: ashes tend to be caustic---this is grade 12 chemistry---demonstrate your mastery of grade 12 chemistry by answering: are ashes acidic or basic? For bonus marks, explain why.).

Remember the Nazis had super duper magic crematoriums so efficient they could burn hundreds of bodies at a time. And unlike modern crematoriums theyleft nothing at all, not even the bits of bones and coarse ashes left by modern crematoriums

Huh? I’ve posted links in this thread of articles where bone remains were found. As for ash, those of us who’ve ever grown fruit know that trees love ash (hint: ashes tend to be caustic—this is grade 12 chemistry—demonstrate your mastery of grade 12 chemistry by answering: are ashes acidic or basic? For bonus marks, explain why.).

Any competent engineer KNOWS that diesel exhaust contains almost NO carbon monoxide. As Germany would have had to import diesel fuel, using it for such a purpose would have been a monumental waste.
I don't believe a shred of it.

More generally the sheer logistics of an industrial killing operation in the midst of a two-front war against adversaries with far greater resources is implausible to me. There were mass killings, no doubt, but in the context of the unlimited warfare the Germans had to engage in, and not on the scale claimed.

The second front was not substantial until 1944. And the Germans had the initiative on the east until 1943. Except for military use of rail, killings were hardly constraining logistics (7.25 million barrels oil per month for military versus 30 thousand barrels per million killed), and military usually got precedence on the rails.

Yet again I point out that I don't dispute that people died at Treblinka, so I don't know why you keep bringing up irrelevant points (nothing in that link supports the claim that 900K or whatever were killed there).

Your argument re. body disposal seems to be to the effect that, we "know" the Germans killed millions, so let's hypothesize how they got rid of the evidence. Rather circular, I think.

Your first argument was that the killing of Jews is overestimated. Hence you have been thus far posting arguments that suggest that the evidence that is commonly used is in contradiction with large scale killing—by itself, a valid application of the modus tollens.

I attacked your argument by showing that the evidence is partially extant (your second claim is by nature hypothetical, as none exists until it is found). All that follows is that you cannot logically conclude that no large scale killing occurred. The present status of the matter is that there is archaeological evidence of such structures that eyewitnesses alleged to have seen, and remains that do not broadly contradict the understanding of the killings, e.g. as developed by Hilberg. This is the nature of scientific inquiry; the onus is on those who seek to test the current understanding, and soil analysis and digs are perfectly reasonable approaches to pursue the matter.

The eyewitness accounts of the camps involve a great many absurdities that no one takes seriously, e.g. death by steam, pneumatic guns, geysers of blood, etc. And Hilberg himself appealed to telepathy to explain away the absence of documentary evidence (a "meeting of the minds").

But your main point here is that, until one has seen the outcome of large scale killings, one cannot know what evidence will be produced (and thus the existing situation (e.g. of no evidence of 900K cremains) cannot be regarded as a refutation). So, one can only ask how the actual evidence supports ("broadly" or otherwise) a prevailing narrative. Ultimately, then, your "testing of the current understanding" amounts to assuming what you want to prove.

More generally the sheer logistics of an industrial killing operation in the midst of a two-front war against adversaries with far greater resources is implausible to me. There were mass killings, no doubt, but in the context of the unlimited warfare the Germans had to engage in, and not on the scale claimed.

The second front was not substantial until 1944. And the Germans had the initiative on the east until 1943. Except for military use of rail, killings were hardly constraining logistics (7.25 million barrels oil per month for military versus 30 thousand barrels per million killed), and military usually got precedence on the rails.

My biggest question is how come repeated tests of the brickwork in the alleged gas chambers consistently show very minimal exposure to cyanide?

When compared to the delousing chamber at auschwitz, the results from the supposed execution chambers show absolutely minimal exposure. Perhaps a cumulative few days fumigation but certainly not sustained gassings.

Your first argument was that the killing of Jews is overestimated. Hence you have been thus far posting arguments that suggest that the evidence that is commonly used is in contradiction with large scale killing---by itself, a valid application of the modus tollens.

I attacked your argument by showing that the evidence is partially extant (your second claim is by nature hypothetical, as none exists until it is found). All that follows is that you cannot logically conclude that no large scale killing occurred. The present status of the matter is that there is archaeological evidence of such structures that eyewitnesses alleged to have seen, and remains that do not broadly contradict the understanding of the killings, e.g. as developed by Hilberg. This is the nature of scientific inquiry; the onus is on those who seek to test the current understanding, and soil analysis and digs are perfectly reasonable approaches to pursue the matter.

Thus your claim of circular reasoning on my part is nonsense.

The eyewitness accounts of the camps involve a great many absurdities that no one takes seriously, e.g. death by steam, pneumatic guns, geysers of blood, etc. And Hilberg himself appealed to telepathy to explain away the absence of documentary evidence (a “meeting of the minds”).

But your main point here is that, until one has seen the outcome of large scale killings, one cannot know what evidence will be produced (and thus the existing situation (e.g. of no evidence of 900K cremains) cannot be regarded as a refutation). So, one can only ask how the actual evidence supports (“broadly” or otherwise) a prevailing narrative. Ultimately, then, your “testing of the current understanding” amounts to assuming what you want to prove.

Telepathy? Now you are grasping for straws. I've read Destruction of The European Jews three times, thanks. He mentions the command structures, as could be pieced together from remaining documentation, repeatedly, and several pages are filled with these diagrams. And he goes through what documentation exists. He also discusses multiple specialist conferences. Meeting of the minds refers to commonality of purpose, and very much within third generation warfare Weimar type command structures.

As to your second claim ("assuming what you want to prove"), that is false. One assumes what one wants to disprove, and you've just conclusively demonstrated your lack of facility with logic and scientific reasoning. The 900k is the working hypothesis. One must assume it to be true, and *then* try to find contradictory evidence (which usually leads to finding---by necessity imperfect and not completely conclusive---confirmatory evidence). This is exactly parallel to the proof by contradiction method so popular in Euclidean geometry, for example. If one assumes something in contradiction to what one seeks to disprove, the result is of no value. If I want to disprove Newtonian physics, and I assume something that a priori does not concord with Newtonian physics and use that assumption, I will with great probability calculate a result in contradiction with experimental results obtained. The contradiction may be due to faulty Newtonian physics, but my non-Newtonian assumption is a more likely candidate for error.

Very simply, as your reasoning is this poor, yet you seem intelligent enough, I'll simply suggest that you work through the first book of Euclid's elements using paper, a straight edge (ruler) and compass to understand his solutions (his proofs are positive, or constructive, although some of them involve proof by contradiction), and then some proof by contradiction problems---positive proof is rare outside pure logical systems. There is no point, given your poor grasp of logical inference and hypotheses, to continue the discussion regarding WWII at this point.

Once you have mastered those problems, return, and explain how to form hypotheses for causal relations, for necessary but not sufficient causes, necessary and sufficient causes, and not necessary yet sufficient causes. Then give an example of a hypothesis involving at least one unnecessary and insufficient cause. Once you can do this, I can again take you seriously. At this point, the charitable interpretation is that you are an example of Dunning Kruger incompetence-induced confidence, and I will avoid further discussion with you on this topic.

"The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave."

First, it's not European, it's human. Second, Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills--the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

"The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America."

Nope. European invaded and invited Africa and Asia. Moreover, Africans and Asians aren't imported to Europe and North America, they are given opportunities to come over.

Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

The second front was not substantial until 1944. And the Germans had the initiative on the east until 1943. Except for military use of rail, killings were hardly constraining logistics (7.25 million barrels oil per month for military versus 30 thousand barrels per million killed), and military usually got precedence on the rails.

Interesting discussion.

My biggest question is how come repeated tests of the brickwork in the alleged gas chambers consistently show very minimal exposure to cyanide?

When compared to the delousing chamber at auschwitz, the results from the supposed execution chambers show absolutely minimal exposure. Perhaps a cumulative few days fumigation but certainly not sustained gassings.

As well, there's no evidence (that I'm aware of) of unusually large amounts of zyklon being sent to Auschwitz (relative to what was needed for delousing purposes), or of necessary supplies for the claimed body disposals. (Eyewitnesses also got the coloration of the alleged bodies wrong.). The death toll for Auschwitz has been systematically lowered over the years (the Soviets claimed 4M, an obvious propaganda lie), the official count is around 1M, and I believe it includes both Jews and non-Jews. (Supposedly there were unregistered prisoners whose deaths do not show up in the official camp books, whose death toll was under 100K; the camp had a maternity ward and there were many elderly prisoners who, according to the official narrative, should have been gassed on entry.). Even the official account grants that Auschwitz' main purpose was not a killing center.

American execution expert Fred Leuchter went to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples of the walls of the supposed "gas chambers", had them tested for methylene blue (which would have proven cyanide use), and save for one sample, NONE of them tested positive. The only sample that tested positive was from a room used to disinfect clothing.
Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his scholarly research by losing all of his state and federal contracts, at the behest of the "tribe", as well as being prosecuted in Massachusetts for "practicing engineering without a license"--a "law" that has never been used against anyone else before or since.
Mr. Leuchter has paid the price for exposing the TRUTH about the jewish holocaust™.

The problem with Prussian blue is that it is by no means a categorical sign of cyanide exposure.[4] One factor necessary in its formation is a very high concentration of cyanide.[4] In terms of the difference between amounts measured in the delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers, critics explain that the exact opposite of what deniers claim is true. Insects have a far higher resistance to cyanide than humans, with concentration levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours[5] (sometimes as long as 72 hours) being necessary for them to succumb. In contrast, a cyanide concentration of only 300ppm is fatal to humans in a matter of minutes.[6] This difference is one of the reasons behind the concentration disparity. Another exceedingly sensitive factor by which very small deviances could determine whether Prussian blue may form is pH. This element could be affected even by just the presence of human beings.[4] Also, while the delousing chambers were left intact, the ruins of the crematoria at Birkenau had been exposed to the elements for over forty years by the time Leuchter collected his samples. This would have severely affected his results, because unlike Prussian blue and other iron based cyanides, cyanide salts are highly soluble in water.[4]

And

The contents of the report, in particular Leuchter's methodology, are heavily criticised. James Roth, the manager of the lab that carried out the analysis on the samples Leuchter collected, swore under oath to the results at the trial. Roth did not learn what the trial was about until he got off the stand.[3] He later stated that cyanide would have only penetrated to a depth of around 10 micrometres, a tenth of the thickness of a human hair. The samples of brick, mortar and concrete that Leuchter took were of indeterminate thickness: not being aware of this, the lab ground the samples to a fine powder which thus severely diluted the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample.[3] A more accurate analysis would have been obtained by analysing the surface of the samples Leuchter collected. Roth offered the analogy that the investigation was like analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber behind it.

My biggest question is how come repeated tests of the brickwork in the alleged gas chambers consistently show very minimal exposure to cyanide?

When compared to the delousing chamber at auschwitz, the results from the supposed execution chambers show absolutely minimal exposure. Perhaps a cumulative few days fumigation but certainly not sustained gassings.

Is zyklon B still integral to the holocaust narrative?

As well, there’s no evidence (that I’m aware of) of unusually large amounts of zyklon being sent to Auschwitz (relative to what was needed for delousing purposes), or of necessary supplies for the claimed body disposals. (Eyewitnesses also got the coloration of the alleged bodies wrong.). The death toll for Auschwitz has been systematically lowered over the years (the Soviets claimed 4M, an obvious propaganda lie), the official count is around 1M, and I believe it includes both Jews and non-Jews. (Supposedly there were unregistered prisoners whose deaths do not show up in the official camp books, whose death toll was under 100K; the camp had a maternity ward and there were many elderly prisoners who, according to the official narrative, should have been gassed on entry.). Even the official account grants that Auschwitz’ main purpose was not a killing center.

My biggest question is how come repeated tests of the brickwork in the alleged gas chambers consistently show very minimal exposure to cyanide?

When compared to the delousing chamber at auschwitz, the results from the supposed execution chambers show absolutely minimal exposure. Perhaps a cumulative few days fumigation but certainly not sustained gassings.

Is zyklon B still integral to the holocaust narrative?

American execution expert Fred Leuchter went to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples of the walls of the supposed “gas chambers”, had them tested for methylene blue (which would have proven cyanide use), and save for one sample, NONE of them tested positive. The only sample that tested positive was from a room used to disinfect clothing.
Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his scholarly research by losing all of his state and federal contracts, at the behest of the “tribe”, as well as being prosecuted in Massachusetts for “practicing engineering without a license”–a “law” that has never been used against anyone else before or since.
Mr. Leuchter has paid the price for exposing the TRUTH about the jewish holocaust™.

American execution expert Fred Leuchter went to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples of the walls of the supposed "gas chambers", had them tested for methylene blue (which would have proven cyanide use), and save for one sample, NONE of them tested positive. The only sample that tested positive was from a room used to disinfect clothing.
Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his scholarly research by losing all of his state and federal contracts, at the behest of the "tribe", as well as being prosecuted in Massachusetts for "practicing engineering without a license"--a "law" that has never been used against anyone else before or since.
Mr. Leuchter has paid the price for exposing the TRUTH about the jewish holocaust™.

I believe the Jan Sehn Institute in Krakow, which accepts the official account, has found similar results to Leuchter’s (and Rudolf’s).

The eyewitness accounts of the camps involve a great many absurdities that no one takes seriously, e.g. death by steam, pneumatic guns, geysers of blood, etc. And Hilberg himself appealed to telepathy to explain away the absence of documentary evidence (a "meeting of the minds").

But your main point here is that, until one has seen the outcome of large scale killings, one cannot know what evidence will be produced (and thus the existing situation (e.g. of no evidence of 900K cremains) cannot be regarded as a refutation). So, one can only ask how the actual evidence supports ("broadly" or otherwise) a prevailing narrative. Ultimately, then, your "testing of the current understanding" amounts to assuming what you want to prove.

Telepathy? Now you are grasping for straws. I’ve read Destruction of The European Jews three times, thanks. He mentions the command structures, as could be pieced together from remaining documentation, repeatedly, and several pages are filled with these diagrams. And he goes through what documentation exists. He also discusses multiple specialist conferences. Meeting of the minds refers to commonality of purpose, and very much within third generation warfare Weimar type command structures.

As to your second claim (“assuming what you want to prove”), that is false. One assumes what one wants to disprove, and you’ve just conclusively demonstrated your lack of facility with logic and scientific reasoning. The 900k is the working hypothesis. One must assume it to be true, and *then* try to find contradictory evidence (which usually leads to finding—by necessity imperfect and not completely conclusive—confirmatory evidence). This is exactly parallel to the proof by contradiction method so popular in Euclidean geometry, for example. If one assumes something in contradiction to what one seeks to disprove, the result is of no value. If I want to disprove Newtonian physics, and I assume something that a priori does not concord with Newtonian physics and use that assumption, I will with great probability calculate a result in contradiction with experimental results obtained. The contradiction may be due to faulty Newtonian physics, but my non-Newtonian assumption is a more likely candidate for error.

Very simply, as your reasoning is this poor, yet you seem intelligent enough, I’ll simply suggest that you work through the first book of Euclid’s elements using paper, a straight edge (ruler) and compass to understand his solutions (his proofs are positive, or constructive, although some of them involve proof by contradiction), and then some proof by contradiction problems—positive proof is rare outside pure logical systems. There is no point, given your poor grasp of logical inference and hypotheses, to continue the discussion regarding WWII at this point.

Once you have mastered those problems, return, and explain how to form hypotheses for causal relations, for necessary but not sufficient causes, necessary and sufficient causes, and not necessary yet sufficient causes. Then give an example of a hypothesis involving at least one unnecessary and insufficient cause. Once you can do this, I can again take you seriously. At this point, the charitable interpretation is that you are an example of Dunning Kruger incompetence-induced confidence, and I will avoid further discussion with you on this topic.

The fact that you've showed up out of nowhere just to sperg out and cast overblown denunciations of others' intellectual integrity says more about the real issue than any of your tedious arguments.

This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.

Go ahead and threaten to avoid discussion with us. We've already tuned you out. You didn't come here for discussion anyway. You came here to threaten, to crow, to spergurbate, and to possibly blue-pill the marginal, half-woke White man. Thankfully your kind is becoming less and less effective. The internet isn't the soapbox for self-important Boomers that it used to be.

My biggest question is how come repeated tests of the brickwork in the alleged gas chambers consistently show very minimal exposure to cyanide?

When compared to the delousing chamber at auschwitz, the results from the supposed execution chambers show absolutely minimal exposure. Perhaps a cumulative few days fumigation but certainly not sustained gassings.

The problem with Prussian blue is that it is by no means a categorical sign of cyanide exposure.[4] One factor necessary in its formation is a very high concentration of cyanide.[4] In terms of the difference between amounts measured in the delousing chambers and homicidal gas chambers, critics explain that the exact opposite of what deniers claim is true. Insects have a far higher resistance to cyanide than humans, with concentration levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million) and an exposure time of more than 20 hours[5] (sometimes as long as 72 hours) being necessary for them to succumb. In contrast, a cyanide concentration of only 300ppm is fatal to humans in a matter of minutes.[6] This difference is one of the reasons behind the concentration disparity. Another exceedingly sensitive factor by which very small deviances could determine whether Prussian blue may form is pH. This element could be affected even by just the presence of human beings.[4] Also, while the delousing chambers were left intact, the ruins of the crematoria at Birkenau had been exposed to the elements for over forty years by the time Leuchter collected his samples. This would have severely affected his results, because unlike Prussian blue and other iron based cyanides, cyanide salts are highly soluble in water.[4]

And

The contents of the report, in particular Leuchter’s methodology, are heavily criticised. James Roth, the manager of the lab that carried out the analysis on the samples Leuchter collected, swore under oath to the results at the trial. Roth did not learn what the trial was about until he got off the stand.[3] He later stated that cyanide would have only penetrated to a depth of around 10 micrometres, a tenth of the thickness of a human hair. The samples of brick, mortar and concrete that Leuchter took were of indeterminate thickness: not being aware of this, the lab ground the samples to a fine powder which thus severely diluted the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample.[3] A more accurate analysis would have been obtained by analysing the surface of the samples Leuchter collected. Roth offered the analogy that the investigation was like analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber behind it.

Telepathy? Now you are grasping for straws. I've read Destruction of The European Jews three times, thanks. He mentions the command structures, as could be pieced together from remaining documentation, repeatedly, and several pages are filled with these diagrams. And he goes through what documentation exists. He also discusses multiple specialist conferences. Meeting of the minds refers to commonality of purpose, and very much within third generation warfare Weimar type command structures.

As to your second claim ("assuming what you want to prove"), that is false. One assumes what one wants to disprove, and you've just conclusively demonstrated your lack of facility with logic and scientific reasoning. The 900k is the working hypothesis. One must assume it to be true, and *then* try to find contradictory evidence (which usually leads to finding---by necessity imperfect and not completely conclusive---confirmatory evidence). This is exactly parallel to the proof by contradiction method so popular in Euclidean geometry, for example. If one assumes something in contradiction to what one seeks to disprove, the result is of no value. If I want to disprove Newtonian physics, and I assume something that a priori does not concord with Newtonian physics and use that assumption, I will with great probability calculate a result in contradiction with experimental results obtained. The contradiction may be due to faulty Newtonian physics, but my non-Newtonian assumption is a more likely candidate for error.

Very simply, as your reasoning is this poor, yet you seem intelligent enough, I'll simply suggest that you work through the first book of Euclid's elements using paper, a straight edge (ruler) and compass to understand his solutions (his proofs are positive, or constructive, although some of them involve proof by contradiction), and then some proof by contradiction problems---positive proof is rare outside pure logical systems. There is no point, given your poor grasp of logical inference and hypotheses, to continue the discussion regarding WWII at this point.

Once you have mastered those problems, return, and explain how to form hypotheses for causal relations, for necessary but not sufficient causes, necessary and sufficient causes, and not necessary yet sufficient causes. Then give an example of a hypothesis involving at least one unnecessary and insufficient cause. Once you can do this, I can again take you seriously. At this point, the charitable interpretation is that you are an example of Dunning Kruger incompetence-induced confidence, and I will avoid further discussion with you on this topic.

You approach a serious multidisciplinary topic with an approach that would scarcely befit a clown. Your attitude is suggestive of intellectually laziness and "aha!" unthinking. Typically, people such as yourself experience rebellion as reliving pubertal disobedience of parental stricture, rather than as a painful duty requiring care and principled conduct. I cannot cure the problem of your attitude. Only you have that opportunity. Is this questioning of historical works perhaps born of ennui, rather than curiosity?

You approach a serious multidisciplinary topic with an approach that would scarcely befit a clown. Your attitude is suggestive of intellectually laziness and “aha!” unthinking. Typically, people such as yourself experience rebellion as reliving pubertal disobedience of parental stricture, rather than as a painful duty requiring care and principled conduct. I cannot cure the problem of your attitude. Only you have that opportunity. Is this questioning of historical works perhaps born of ennui, rather than curiosity?

You approach a serious multidisciplinary topic with an approach that would scarcely befit a clown. Your attitude is suggestive of intellectually laziness and "aha!" unthinking. Typically, people such as yourself experience rebellion as reliving pubertal disobedience of parental stricture, rather than as a painful duty requiring care and principled conduct. I cannot cure the problem of your attitude. Only you have that opportunity. Is this questioning of historical works perhaps born of ennui, rather than curiosity?

Africans are decidedly capable of demonstrating those skills–the problem is that 500 years of colonial rule gutted their society. They are in the processing of rebuilding like any other conquered people.

Telepathy? Now you are grasping for straws. I've read Destruction of The European Jews three times, thanks. He mentions the command structures, as could be pieced together from remaining documentation, repeatedly, and several pages are filled with these diagrams. And he goes through what documentation exists. He also discusses multiple specialist conferences. Meeting of the minds refers to commonality of purpose, and very much within third generation warfare Weimar type command structures.

As to your second claim ("assuming what you want to prove"), that is false. One assumes what one wants to disprove, and you've just conclusively demonstrated your lack of facility with logic and scientific reasoning. The 900k is the working hypothesis. One must assume it to be true, and *then* try to find contradictory evidence (which usually leads to finding---by necessity imperfect and not completely conclusive---confirmatory evidence). This is exactly parallel to the proof by contradiction method so popular in Euclidean geometry, for example. If one assumes something in contradiction to what one seeks to disprove, the result is of no value. If I want to disprove Newtonian physics, and I assume something that a priori does not concord with Newtonian physics and use that assumption, I will with great probability calculate a result in contradiction with experimental results obtained. The contradiction may be due to faulty Newtonian physics, but my non-Newtonian assumption is a more likely candidate for error.

Very simply, as your reasoning is this poor, yet you seem intelligent enough, I'll simply suggest that you work through the first book of Euclid's elements using paper, a straight edge (ruler) and compass to understand his solutions (his proofs are positive, or constructive, although some of them involve proof by contradiction), and then some proof by contradiction problems---positive proof is rare outside pure logical systems. There is no point, given your poor grasp of logical inference and hypotheses, to continue the discussion regarding WWII at this point.

Once you have mastered those problems, return, and explain how to form hypotheses for causal relations, for necessary but not sufficient causes, necessary and sufficient causes, and not necessary yet sufficient causes. Then give an example of a hypothesis involving at least one unnecessary and insufficient cause. Once you can do this, I can again take you seriously. At this point, the charitable interpretation is that you are an example of Dunning Kruger incompetence-induced confidence, and I will avoid further discussion with you on this topic.

Dude, you have 24 posts.

The fact that you’ve showed up out of nowhere just to sperg out and cast overblown denunciations of others’ intellectual integrity says more about the real issue than any of your tedious arguments.

This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.

Go ahead and threaten to avoid discussion with us. We’ve already tuned you out. You didn’t come here for discussion anyway. You came here to threaten, to crow, to spergurbate, and to possibly blue-pill the marginal, half-woke White man. Thankfully your kind is becoming less and less effective. The internet isn’t the soapbox for self-important Boomers that it used to be.

"This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support."

Talk about sperging and overblown generalizations. Real white men see through your efforts at deception.

How exactly is he "threatening to avoid discussion with you?" He seems to be refuting your points rather nicely.

By the way, are you familiar with

1) the fact that Ron Unz is Jewish, and

2) the web traffic for the Unz Review (and many other alt-right/alt-media sites) is not that high?

https://www.similarweb.com/website/unz.com#overview

You can spam your "alt-right rising" and "woke white man" memes all you want. There is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, it seems that more people are sick of politics than ever. Virtually all news and political sites (yes, including the alt-right) have experienced a decline in web traffic over the past few months.

1. So Rwandan/Ugandan/British/US theft (often via slave labour mining; I refer to the Coltan mining) and genocide (5-10 million) does not harm DRC? Pray tell. Word on the street is that the Rwandan economy was doing well enough.

2. British colonialism initially may have medically improved the lives of Kenyans, including Gikuyu, but the policy had become decidedly starvationist (via taxation, no less! despite resource extraction; such consistent Friedmanite/etc libertarianism) by the time of the Mau Mau. By the way, despite the relevant agreement with regards to the (Maa) White Highlands being decidedly a temporary one, Kenya had to pay reparations (!!) for their return---I take it that your firm commitment to property rights doesn't extend to the Maa.

Then again, such 'libertarian' silence about the mechanics of colonialism, in favour of broadsides regarding alleged cumulative effect (40% of Angolans were de facto slaves until independence in 1975, and the country had a single black university educated citizen) is always telling. When such matters are brought up, the fallback position is to point to south-western Nigeria, as university education had extended to substantial portions of the population. But here we face a crunch---south western Nigeria had been colonized for much longer than the rest of black colonial Africa, and despite substantial taxation, other colonies were required to keep it up. In this regard, it is bemusing in light of Britain's deindustrialization, that it is following the Swiss Banking scam model, though even then, it cannot fund the needs of its ethnic native population, and must bring in foreigners in order to entice their funds.

3. Sweden did have several colonies at various times, and it also had a large resource base (minerals and surface area per unit population). Moreover, it had decidedly favourable trade relations with the Soviet Union, as did Finland, post war, although Sweden avoided the destruction of the war itself, having been neutral.

There is another issue here. National wealth accumulation is after all related to profitability, which in plain accounting terms, is the difference between moneys paid to obtain material and labour, and moneys obtained for product sold. Which is why third world refinement of ores (except for the dirtiest stages of said refinement) is usually discouraged. Case in point, Jamaican Bauxite, with again a "firm commitment" (yes, sarcasm is warranted) to the 'free market,' much as during the colonial period.

For shear gallows humor, one may consider the case of the biggest mining operator country in Africa, namely Canada. Despite its immense territory and low population, it still finds its foreign exchange position sufficiently uncomfortable to run a litany of mining-related policy scams (Canada in Africa, Yves Engler). But what makes it even richer is, despite its opposition to producer cartels abroad, Canada runs its own producer cartel, CANPOTEX. Funny what high standards of living may be obtained.

4. I take it that Britain's intervention in Egypt, to stop industrialization, around the same time as Sweden's industrialization, doesn't count. Nor does British policy.

5. I take it that the dollar wall street regime doesn't count either. The fact that your foreign aid racket (federal government pays US company money to do work in poor country, with subsequent US dollar denominated debt for poor country; books like Michael Hudson's Superimperialism and Graham Hancock's Lords of Poverty come to mind---the problem is hardly limited to the US) is designed to force privatization should, by your beliefs, improve the poor country's economy, notwithstanding that most of the US technological sector's foundational research is state funded. Then again, there is that unpleasant little matter of a certain economic study...

In a sense, post-colonial is like post-slavery. Many of the nasty institutions remain, including the post-colonial leadership, which was, despite colonial marketing efforts (especially in Kenya) largely colonial native leadership. The main difference is that the extractive powers have lost their legal responsibilities, and have found that they can be even more extractive under 'independence'.

The fact that you've showed up out of nowhere just to sperg out and cast overblown denunciations of others' intellectual integrity says more about the real issue than any of your tedious arguments.

This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.

Go ahead and threaten to avoid discussion with us. We've already tuned you out. You didn't come here for discussion anyway. You came here to threaten, to crow, to spergurbate, and to possibly blue-pill the marginal, half-woke White man. Thankfully your kind is becoming less and less effective. The internet isn't the soapbox for self-important Boomers that it used to be.

“This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.”

Talk about sperging and overblown generalizations. Real white men see through your efforts at deception.

all you have to do is say the number 70 for IQ, and you do not need to know anything else.

Corvinus is a fool or a gangster.

the old commie left, the new commie left, and the new new commie left. with its running puppies of femi-commies, complainers of every denomination...on the children's crusade

Except I would add that there is a newish wrinkle in the White Man's Burthen with the kids these days.

back in the 60s etc one could reasonably state that making the Ultimate Anti-racist Statement of actually marrying a negro, was just too much to ask of a Good Person.

Today, you get a merit badge for so doing. Yet, all these white kids on the social justice crusade still won't do it. Sooooo, the guilt argument comes into play again, but maybe with another Lost Cause but cool now...mexicans. Most whites would tend to defend their resistance to marrying a black because of all the Bad News of the last 50 years or so....but mexers are an easier sell to the souls of White folks, who still don't want to marry them BUT the Guilt complex, coupled with the Stockholm Syndrome, especially with regard to the muslims, is activated. Whoopie...

Mexers are not as Other as blacks, and they are smarter, by about 5 points. Then the muslims are the Absolute Other for our times, and present themselves to our White kids as perfect victims...maybe with even the jews figuring into the equation, since probably the average social justice warthog digger wants to divest from Israel. They got something right for a change.

Now we got the religious revivalism of sanctuary cities, colleges, even states. Sanctuary is traditionally a religiously based observance. Asylum is political, and goes back to antiquity.
The kids and their lib-rad mentors have gotten Religion.

Why? Besides the White Altruism Quotient...very high by comparison to other races, there is the compensation for not-marrying, not adopting, the untermenschen, so these tortured white souls /psyches start to scream about Equality! again. And again. Justice! Project your guilt onto the scapegoat...white men for sure.

Another factor for our kids is their general level of anxiety about making a living. Blame the Power Structure, which is white male of course. The World Sucks, and White Men are to blame. Sort of like our Corvinis here. 500 years of Oppression!!

Black IQ in Africa, 70. Muzzie from the ME...84. Mexer half breed, 90.. I dunno what the average IQ of our White warthog/diggers is but i would guess abut 105, just smart enough to get themselves in trouble These libs Think, and God laughs.

Will us deplorables give the libs sanctuary when the tide turns, as it already has? Depends. Personally, I am not religious. It will be the Left that starts the killing, they historically have always done so. However, this time the right is armed and getting more and more dangerous.

Joe Webb

Joe,
What’s the protocol you avail to deal with that unrewarded rage on a daily basis? Depositing tripe wherever the moderator is lenient?

Or, as rumoured, performing in front of that mirror certain acts and antics au naturel, save those motorcycle boots and helmet?

The fact that you've showed up out of nowhere just to sperg out and cast overblown denunciations of others' intellectual integrity says more about the real issue than any of your tedious arguments.

This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.

Go ahead and threaten to avoid discussion with us. We've already tuned you out. You didn't come here for discussion anyway. You came here to threaten, to crow, to spergurbate, and to possibly blue-pill the marginal, half-woke White man. Thankfully your kind is becoming less and less effective. The internet isn't the soapbox for self-important Boomers that it used to be.

As I suggested geometry to master application of the modus tollens, I take it that mastering the modus tollens constitutes blue-pilling. Interesting.

I thought about pointing out that you were being a bit cruel, then this last comment directed to you reminded me that most of these 88s are dolts and have no idea when they are being handed their ass on a silver tray so the razor edge of truth in your comments does not cut nor bleed their ego.

Keep it up, if for no other reason than informing those of us who are interested in what you have to say.

The fact that you've showed up out of nowhere just to sperg out and cast overblown denunciations of others' intellectual integrity says more about the real issue than any of your tedious arguments.

This is not a geometry problem. The holohoax is political fact that is currently used to rob White people of their self-respect and force them to turn over their countries to foreign invaders and their globalist puppet masters. It is an unrelenting campaign of psychological terrorism which you apparently support.

Go ahead and threaten to avoid discussion with us. We've already tuned you out. You didn't come here for discussion anyway. You came here to threaten, to crow, to spergurbate, and to possibly blue-pill the marginal, half-woke White man. Thankfully your kind is becoming less and less effective. The internet isn't the soapbox for self-important Boomers that it used to be.

How exactly is he “threatening to avoid discussion with you?” He seems to be refuting your points rather nicely.

By the way, are you familiar with

1) the fact that Ron Unz is Jewish, and

2) the web traffic for the Unz Review (and many other alt-right/alt-media sites) is not that high?

You can spam your “alt-right rising” and “woke white man” memes all you want. There is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, it seems that more people are sick of politics than ever. Virtually all news and political sites (yes, including the alt-right) have experienced a decline in web traffic over the past few months.

As I suggested geometry to master application of the modus tollens, I take it that mastering the modus tollens constitutes blue-pilling. Interesting.

Excellent comments by you.

I thought about pointing out that you were being a bit cruel, then this last comment directed to you reminded me that most of these 88s are dolts and have no idea when they are being handed their ass on a silver tray so the razor edge of truth in your comments does not cut nor bleed their ego.

Keep it up, if for no other reason than informing those of us who are interested in what you have to say.

I don't mind that the standard history is questioned, though, or even by people who are judeophobic, as long as a minimum of intellectual seriousness and honesty prevails. Personally I'm disgusted that in the country in which I reside, that is illegal. But at the same time, these folks don't take the matter seriously. In any field of study, one takes a substantial thesis at a time, and tests it. The matter of the weather that was raised is a valid point, but their reasoning is not. Let a9 be the truth value that 900k died at Treblinka, and b9 be the truth value that 900k were exhumed and burned and otherwise disposed. The weather consideration makes b9 improbable. If b9 is false, then either a9 is false or the bulk of the remains are still at the site (strictly an inclusive or should be used, but the conditions contradict each other). They wish for the former to be true, and neglect the latter, that is, they neglect the logical structure that leads to the conclusions that they seek to attack.

Another matter, as someone from a more leftist background. The problem with the modus tollens is at least as present on the left, at least in North America, and it is in disgust to this intellectual failure on the left that I'm sticking around here.

I sometimes wonder whether the Africans have a point, albeit not one that they would care to acknowledge. The type of progress that Europeans brought to Africa requires European average cognitive abilities, European future-time orientation, European impulse control, and European aversion to pointless clan-based, interpersonal violence. Africans are capable of none of these, so any civilizational advances conferred by the European presence will inevitably disappear after Europeans leave. The most humane thing Europeans could have done before leaving is to have guided Africans back to sustainable subsistence farming. A reversion to subsistence agriculture, after the coming population collapse, will likely be the best outcome that Africans can ever hope for. The most important thing is to prevent the importation of Africans into Europe and North America.

How do you know the Africans are not capable of these things? Is there some kind of gene that goes along with white skin?

I thought about pointing out that you were being a bit cruel, then this last comment directed to you reminded me that most of these 88s are dolts and have no idea when they are being handed their ass on a silver tray so the razor edge of truth in your comments does not cut nor bleed their ego.

Keep it up, if for no other reason than informing those of us who are interested in what you have to say.

But, I’m still waiting for a reason to believe that 900K people were killed at Treblinka, buried, exhumed, burned on open air pyres, then reburied. Do you have one?

And I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that just because some German low to mid ranking soldier may have claimed to have the exhumation of all or even a majority of remains, that he did in fact do so, rather than, say, cheap out and do enough of a job on the surface to convinve his superiors.

After all, you decided to distract when I suggested that the question should be subject to actual physical investigation---which could also test your theories. Heck, if the weather was as inclement as your links suggest, then it is most likely that some low ranker did a half job. Distraction in 3...2...1

But, I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that 900K people were killed at Treblinka, buried, exhumed, burned on open air pyres, then reburied. Do you have one?

And I’m still waiting for a reason to believe that just because some German low to mid ranking soldier may have claimed to have the exhumation of all or even a majority of remains, that he did in fact do so, rather than, say, cheap out and do enough of a job on the surface to convinve his superiors.

After all, you decided to distract when I suggested that the question should be subject to actual physical investigation—which could also test your theories. Heck, if the weather was as inclement as your links suggest, then it is most likely that some low ranker did a half job. Distraction in 3…2…1

BTW, when did I ever object to or resist a proper forensic investigation of these sites? I fully support such a thing, it would resolve a lot of questions. Interesting that, some 75 years after "the best documented event in human history", nothing of the sort has ever been done. In Sturdy-Colls' "ground-breaking" investigation, the chief Rabbi of Poland (a New Yorker!), kept a watchful eye to alert them when they'd gone far enough. Her report resolves absolutely nothing.

I thought about pointing out that you were being a bit cruel, then this last comment directed to you reminded me that most of these 88s are dolts and have no idea when they are being handed their ass on a silver tray so the razor edge of truth in your comments does not cut nor bleed their ego.

Keep it up, if for no other reason than informing those of us who are interested in what you have to say.

I don’t mind that the standard history is questioned, though, or even by people who are judeophobic, as long as a minimum of intellectual seriousness and honesty prevails. Personally I’m disgusted that in the country in which I reside, that is illegal. But at the same time, these folks don’t take the matter seriously. In any field of study, one takes a substantial thesis at a time, and tests it. The matter of the weather that was raised is a valid point, but their reasoning is not. Let a9 be the truth value that 900k died at Treblinka, and b9 be the truth value that 900k were exhumed and burned and otherwise disposed. The weather consideration makes b9 improbable. If b9 is false, then either a9 is false or the bulk of the remains are still at the site (strictly an inclusive or should be used, but the conditions contradict each other). They wish for the former to be true, and neglect the latter, that is, they neglect the logical structure that leads to the conclusions that they seek to attack.

Another matter, as someone from a more leftist background. The problem with the modus tollens is at least as present on the left, at least in North America, and it is in disgust to this intellectual failure on the left that I’m sticking around here.

I don’t have to tell you that they do take it seriously, but from a mindset that is looking for exceptions, flaws, incorrect or missing information, etc. They think that one mistaken number or one discredited source will bring everything down like a house of cards. In fact, they frequently use the house of cards analogy. It is not an intellectual search for the “truth.” It is a search for tidbits of doubt upon which a soul of hate can grow.

I don't mind that the standard history is questioned, though, or even by people who are judeophobic, as long as a minimum of intellectual seriousness and honesty prevails. Personally I'm disgusted that in the country in which I reside, that is illegal. But at the same time, these folks don't take the matter seriously. In any field of study, one takes a substantial thesis at a time, and tests it. The matter of the weather that was raised is a valid point, but their reasoning is not. Let a9 be the truth value that 900k died at Treblinka, and b9 be the truth value that 900k were exhumed and burned and otherwise disposed. The weather consideration makes b9 improbable. If b9 is false, then either a9 is false or the bulk of the remains are still at the site (strictly an inclusive or should be used, but the conditions contradict each other). They wish for the former to be true, and neglect the latter, that is, they neglect the logical structure that leads to the conclusions that they seek to attack.

Another matter, as someone from a more leftist background. The problem with the modus tollens is at least as present on the left, at least in North America, and it is in disgust to this intellectual failure on the left that I'm sticking around here.

But at the same time, these folks don’t take the matter seriously.

I don’t have to tell you that they do take it seriously, but from a mindset that is looking for exceptions, flaws, incorrect or missing information, etc. They think that one mistaken number or one discredited source will bring everything down like a house of cards. In fact, they frequently use the house of cards analogy. It is not an intellectual search for the “truth.” It is a search for tidbits of doubt upon which a soul of hate can grow.

And I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that just because some German low to mid ranking soldier may have claimed to have the exhumation of all or even a majority of remains, that he did in fact do so, rather than, say, cheap out and do enough of a job on the surface to convinve his superiors.

After all, you decided to distract when I suggested that the question should be subject to actual physical investigation---which could also test your theories. Heck, if the weather was as inclement as your links suggest, then it is most likely that some low ranker did a half job. Distraction in 3...2...1

What low-ranking German soldier are we talking about? Maybe he’s still alive, he can be put on trial. Let me guess: we “know” it happened, therefore this guy must have existed?

Glad to know you’re sticking around to uphold the banner of the left, though. Your sense of self-importance is an inspiration to us all.

And I'm still waiting for a reason to believe that just because some German low to mid ranking soldier may have claimed to have the exhumation of all or even a majority of remains, that he did in fact do so, rather than, say, cheap out and do enough of a job on the surface to convinve his superiors.

After all, you decided to distract when I suggested that the question should be subject to actual physical investigation---which could also test your theories. Heck, if the weather was as inclement as your links suggest, then it is most likely that some low ranker did a half job. Distraction in 3...2...1

BTW, when did I ever object to or resist a proper forensic investigation of these sites? I fully support such a thing, it would resolve a lot of questions. Interesting that, some 75 years after “the best documented event in human history”, nothing of the sort has ever been done. In Sturdy-Colls’ “ground-breaking” investigation, the chief Rabbi of Poland (a New Yorker!), kept a watchful eye to alert them when they’d gone far enough. Her report resolves absolutely nothing.

“Overall, American society is superior to assorted African and Arab societies because America is still inhabited by the kind of individuals who make possible a thriving civil society”

This is very frightening to read when one comes from Africa. I thought this superior society was the one which is bombing others for no other reason than looting what they have and creating havoc– Libya, Iraq, Syria and others.

Only a sick and retarded person would justify colonialism and its “achievements” in Africa. I wonder what an alien from another universe would think when he sees the brutalities and senseless killings being committed by humans on this planet (by people of European origin and Africans alike). It might think that he is seeing a zoo full of insensitive animals. I don’t know what you would say if these aliens colonize, humiliate and degrade you but bring you a sophisticated civilization.

You are bragging about your civilization, but may I remind you that Africa has had its flowering civilization and culture for thousands of years when the Europeans were still crawling in their caves.

Christianity has come to Ethiopia, 325 AC. The country has its own languages and written alphabet for thousands of years. This language is still being used as one of the official languages, is taught at school and is as good as any other language in Europe.
Ethiopia has defied and defeated those who had tried to colonize and remained independent for more than three thousand years, so no development can be attributed to you or to colonialism.

Yes, we were unfortunate to have hunger, starvation and a civil war, but were you really better off? Europe had also its plagues, a hundred and thirty year wars, the first and second world war, unless of course you choose to forget that. We are no different in that. It is a human nature.
Yes, we have not invented the car, the plane, the tanks and the drones simply because we did not need them. We have weaved our own textile, tilled our land, melt our gold and silver for ornament, melted iron and produced tools, we have had our own astrology, maths, calendar etc., etc. You have not heard about them doesn’t mean that they have never existed. Nobody claimed glory or patent because the invention belonged to the people. Textile, pottery, leather products, you name it was and is still there
Oh, and this bragging about your high IQ. IQ is about survival and not about solving some fancy mathematical problem or passing an aptitude test. You won’t survive a day with your 200 plus IQ in an African desert whereas a pygmy with an IQ of 70, according to your method attributing an intelligence to a human being, would.
What you call magic medicines actually cured people, unlike yours which treats a person for life or make him/her dependent on big pharma. So, please give us a break!! Yes, we admit your achievements and nobody denies them, they have made our lives easier, but what about also admitting the achievements of others as well?

Say what you will about development and colonial achievement, but nobody can pretend it was meant to benefit the colonised. Blame the colonised or ill achievement, for sloth, but the systems in place inevitably benefit parties elsewhere, its up to the colonised to eke out a living from what’s left

“Overall, American society is superior to assorted African and Arab societies because America is still inhabited by the kind of individuals who make possible a thriving civil society”

This is very frightening to read when one comes from Africa. I thought this superior society was the one which is bombing others for no other reason than looting what they have and creating havoc– Libya, Iraq, Syria and others.

Only a sick and retarded person would justify colonialism and its “achievements” in Africa. I wonder what an alien from another universe would think when he sees the brutalities and senseless killings being committed by humans on this planet (by people of European origin and Africans alike). It might think that he is seeing a zoo full of insensitive animals. I don’t know what you would say if these aliens colonize, humiliate and degrade you but bring you a sophisticated civilization.

You are bragging about your civilization, but may I remind you that Africa has had its flowering civilization and culture for thousands of years when the Europeans were still crawling in their caves.

Christianity has come to Ethiopia, 325 AC. The country has its own languages and written alphabet for thousands of years. This language is still being used as one of the official languages, is taught at school and is as good as any other language in Europe. Ethiopia has defied and defeated those who had tried to colonize and remained independent for more than three thousand years, so no development can be attributed to you or to colonialism.

Yes, we were unfortunate to have hunger, starvation and a civil war, but were you really better off? Europe had also its plagues, a hundred and thirty year wars, the first and second world war, unless of course you choose to forget that. We are no different in that. It is a human nature. Yes, we have not invented the car, the plane, the tanks and the drones simply because we did not need them. We have weaved our own textile, tilled our land, melt our gold and silver for ornament, melted iron and produced tools, we have had our own astrology, maths, calendar etc., etc. You have not heard about them doesn’t mean that they have never existed. Nobody claimed glory or patent because the invention belonged to the people. Textile, pottery, leather products, you name it was and is still there Oh, and this bragging about your high IQ. IQ is about survival and not about solving some fancy mathematical problem or passing an aptitude test. You won’t survive a day with your 200 plus IQ in an African desert whereas a pygmy with an IQ of 70, according to your method attributing an intelligence to a human being, would. What you call magic medicines actually cured people, unlike yours which treats a person for life or make him/her dependent on big pharma. So, please give us a break!! Yes, we admit your achievements and nobody denies them, they have made our lives easier, but what about also admitting the achievements of others as well?

BTW, when did I ever object to or resist a proper forensic investigation of these sites? I fully support such a thing, it would resolve a lot of questions. Interesting that, some 75 years after "the best documented event in human history", nothing of the sort has ever been done. In Sturdy-Colls' "ground-breaking" investigation, the chief Rabbi of Poland (a New Yorker!), kept a watchful eye to alert them when they'd gone far enough. Her report resolves absolutely nothing.

You distracted from such suggestion on my part and here you distract again with the overly broad ‘resisted’. Comment 73, though 63 in response to my 58 is the most obvious.

Not all Oromos believe they were colonized. The Ethiopians are so intermarried and intermixed that it is difficult to mark the line. Hoewever some Ormos do believe that, but a significant part thinks they are part of Ethiopia, not a subordinate. The humiliation the Oromos have suffered cannot be justified,

The simple truth is that most ordinary Africans were perfectly content to allow the European colonial powers to run their countries, as long as they were generally left alone to live their lives. When the shoe pinched - as it sometimes did - they pushed back but in most cases they were unconcerned with who was in the capital city and they had little day-to-day contact with whites. Life was slowly getting better for most people and that was enough. Almost without exception the trouble in African countries was caused by a tiny class of local malcontents who had been educated in Europe and figured out that by spouting slogans and collaborating with European liberal fools they could seize political power and enjoy the fruits of looting and plunder. A goodly number of these people were latent psychopaths, as they proved once they were in the presidential palace. That, in a nutshell, is the post-colonial history of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Without a corresponding effort to increase the genetic capital and aggregate IQ of the average African population, the development caused by colonialism and Western investment in sub-Saharan Africa created the conditions for a massive dysgenic population explosion that will soon threaten to engulf Europe (if not the world). From this perspective, colonialism has had terrible long-term consequences.

I also think it's possible to make the argument that, in a psychological and cultural sense at least, blacks were better off prior to the existence of AIDS and modern weaponry in Africa. Yes, many African customs are utterly barbaric by Western standards. However, keep in mind that Africans evolved such customs over tens of thousands of years. They were not necessarily unhappy or dissatisfied under them. Forcing modernity upon populations which did not evolve for it is often not beneficial for the population impacted, even if material improvements occur.

It is also reasonable to note that modern wonderful white people had “utterly barbaric” customs not all that long ago. Slavery less than 150 years. The last person killed by the Inquisition 1826. Drawing and quartering 1782. Last witch burned 1727.

These are (mostly) British dates. Remoter parts of Europe were a good deal worse.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter